Talk:Social construction of gender
LGBT studies | ||||
|
OR dispute
There is no original research in this article. Could you please clarify what you mean by "original research?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecdjes (talk • contribs) 04:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC) [sic]
- Here's an example: Gender identity is not a stable, fixed trait - rather, it is socially constructed and may vary over time for an individual. This is a topic sentence, with no attribution even contextually, and no source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.171.223.35 (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
There is only original research in this article - it was posted by graduate students in social psychology and we only posted "original research" (Ecdjes (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)).
- You should look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research 88.114.154.216 (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
You say there is no original research and also there is only original research. Which is it? Iguessiknowsomestuff (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
NPOV Dispute
Without any statement on the content of the article's actual veracity, I think this article leans heavily towards presenting fairly contentious opinions as facts. That is not to say they are not true, rather that there is a substantial enough body that disputes these statements that they should not be presented without consideration of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.104.180 (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. The problem is that the article is written as to imply that the some opinions expressed by some very controversial philosophers and other researchers are true. For example instead of saying "according to x this and this is so", it says "this and this is so", then refers to an opinion piece... In addition the languages is really bad at places and the use of sources in general does not meet Wikipedia quality citeria. 88.114.154.216 (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Well put-- and in the four years since these complaints, nobody has bothered to add any of the critiques of the theory. I'm sorry, but at the moment this is virtually a press release for a theory. Profhum (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- @76.99.104.180, 88.114.154.216, and Profhum: Any editor may add pertinent and sourced material to present another side, if they deem it necessary. Personally, I find the views of someone like, say, Leonard Sax misguided, but as his views are currently not represented in the article and as he has several books out on the topic, it would be appropriate to include some of these views, and source them to him (or to others espousing that view).
- In the meantime, I agree that the article is too POV at the moment, so I have restored the {{POV}} banner (within a {{multiple issues}} template}} which was removed in rev 727167655 by Absterr08. See #Multiple issues banner removed, below. Mathglot (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, 10 years later the NPOV issue has only become larger. This is aggravated by the many editors who edit here as part of a class assignment. They do not dare disagree with the views held as doctrine on many campuses. How many even realize that there are alternative views? Somebody who is knowledgeable about serious literature on this subject, please create a paragraph on alternative views. The present state of this article is not an example of Wikipedia at its best. Pete unseth (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Please point to some alternative views or people who hold alternative views, so that those views can be added and this POV issue can be resolved. ParticipantObserver (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- In alignment with the suggestion above, I added an expert help template to the article, with the hope that someone who is knowledgeable about serious literature on this subject might create a paragraph on alternative views. ParticipantObserver (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- @ParticipantObserver: I removed it, mostly because it duplicates the NPOV tag that was already there. In addition, with regard to alternate views, one needs to couch any NPOV tag in terms of WP:NPOV policy regarding *this topic*, which is determined by its article title, which is: "Social construction of gender"—that is the only thing that NPOV policy governs here. In particular, this article does *not* need to be neutral about "theories of gender", because that is not the topic in this article.
- What I think I am hearing above, is that some editors are unhappy that this article talks entirely about "Social construction of gender", and unfairly avoids talking about, for example, other theories of gender such as gender essentialism for example, which is a competing theory. But that is an invalid argument here with respect to NPOV. *This* article need only be neutral about theories of social construction of gender, and does not need to be neutral about theories of gender writ large, the way that the Gender article would have to be. This article can certainly mention essentialism, and does (four times; mostly in the "criticism" section, as is perfectly appropriate) but there is no need to discuss other theories of gender at this article, and in fact, that would be WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE here, due to the name of this article and what the topic is.
- This is similar to any other article about a theory, that by definition, talks mostly about that theory, regardless of competing theories or whether the theory is right or wrong or pseudoscientific or fantastical. The article Flat Earth talks mostly about the flat earth theory; the Steady-state theory article talks mostly about Einstein's discredited theory of cosmological origin; Lamarckism talks almost entirely about the discredited theory of genetics. There is no need to alter these articles, so that, for example, half of the Flat earth article talks about a spherical earth, or that half of Steady-state theory talks about the Big bang theory; or that half of Lamarckism talks about DNA and the standard genetics model. *That* would be non-neutral, and a hijacking of the topic of those articles.
- Likewise, the great majority of *this* article must talk about "social construction of gender", regardless if it is true or false, regardless if it is a majority view, and regardless if other, competing theories exist or are held by the great majority of researchers in the field, because that is what WP:Article title policy and WP:NPOV policy (in the form of WP:DUEWEIGHT) require for this topic. To the extent that this article does not fairly or neutrally represent the majority view about "social construction of gender", the NPOV tag may remain (but that is far from clear at this point). Where it *may* be non-neutral, is with respect to the small fraction of population considered (see discussion section #Globalize below).
- Perhaps editors are thinking more about the "Gender" article, which must be neutral with respect to its topic, and at that article, theories of social construction, essentialist theories, and other theories about gender should all be covered, in due proportion to their prevalence among independent, secondary sources in the field. But not here.
- At this point, I'd be inclined to remove the NPOV tags, because I'm not sure anyone has indicated what it is that is non-neutral about it. I think there is a lot of muddy writing that could stand to be improved, and the article should probably be expanded to include other views about social construction of gender as well, but that is a copyediting or expansion issue, and not an NPOV issue. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds right to me, thanks! I also am unclear on what people think is non-neutral here. I have now removed the NPOV tag from the article. If someone at some point indicates what the alternative views are, then we can always discuss whether there is a NPOV issue. Thanks again for weighing in! ParticipantObserver (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Non-neutrality
The author of article attributes merit to certain theories in a such a way that encourages bias. IE: "Stronger versions argue that the differences in behavior between men and women are entirely social conventions, whereas weaker versions believe that behavior is defined by biological universal factors to some extent, but that social conventions also have some effect on gendered behavior. Other theories even claim that there are more genders than just the two most commonly accepted (male and female)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.198.128 (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
This Page is a Mess
This page is full claims of facts that are not only unsourced but at times appear to be non-sequiturs. Many of the claims have been sitting for months with a "citation needed" and they are still there un-cited. Soul Cream (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Why don't you try to bring some positive energy to this article instead of misspelling 'unsourced' and bringing negative energy into this talk page? 24.239.124.140 (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- If I get the time, I'll start work on it, but this is a big job. This article is the result of a subculture attempting its bias (i.e. that gender is purely a social construct) as truth, and this is evident throughout the entire article. It article is packed full of unsubstantiated claims, dodgy sources, and more. In its 'Basic concepts' section, it makes no effort whatsoever in describing alternative points of view. The article almost entirely fails to acknowledge the fact that the theory upon which it is written has not received sufficient acceptance to be considered ipso facto valid. If I'm honest, the abundance of Harvard referencing, and the frequently poor writing style smacks of some kind of high school attempt at re-writing the history of gender in psychological science. Thatguykalem (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Like I stated here, while gender is widely accepted as a social construct, such as by the World Health Organization (WHO) (seen here), Thatguykalem is correct that the alternative point of view should feature more than it currently does in that article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- This is a very important detail that the Wiki community needs to understand at large. Just because a suitably presitgious authority has determined that they ascribe to a particular belief, that does not mean that the belief is to be viewed as fact. The important feature here that you and other like you miss, is that social constructionism is a lens through which the world and the actions of the people in it is interpreted. Is by no means the place of Wikipedia or any of its community members to assert in documentation that one methodology of interpretation is "fact" not only does that miss the definition totally miss the meanings of the words "fact" and "methodology"; it also leaves open the far more sinister opportunity for the assertion that "all conclusions drawn from this methodology are fact". It is precisely this very dogmatic and ornery kind of conjecture that defines ideology. It is precisely what has turned this article into the absolute dumpster fire of disorganization and standards violation that it is, and Wikipedia at large has no place for that kind of thinking (or rather lack thereof). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azeranth (talk • contribs) 19:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Absolutely.
- To be franc, the only fact that the WHO is being mentioned as an authority on the reform of language, speech and though is at best laughable, at worst, sinister (as we have seen before on other changes of definitions they have adopted to ensure the consistency of their recommendation with the definition of the situation thay those recommendations referred to)...
- If gender was a social construct, why parents, doctors and all the cohort of supporters of the transition of children base their decisions so promptly on the claim by children clearly too young to have any social representation and personal experience of it, to belong to the opposite sex? (sounds binary eh!)...
- What else will be said to be a social construct?
- Health?
- How will that work for children bien with diabetes or leukemia?
- Come back to Earth people... This ain't rational... 92.40.216.240 (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- This is a very important detail that the Wiki community needs to understand at large. Just because a suitably presitgious authority has determined that they ascribe to a particular belief, that does not mean that the belief is to be viewed as fact. The important feature here that you and other like you miss, is that social constructionism is a lens through which the world and the actions of the people in it is interpreted. Is by no means the place of Wikipedia or any of its community members to assert in documentation that one methodology of interpretation is "fact" not only does that miss the definition totally miss the meanings of the words "fact" and "methodology"; it also leaves open the far more sinister opportunity for the assertion that "all conclusions drawn from this methodology are fact". It is precisely this very dogmatic and ornery kind of conjecture that defines ideology. It is precisely what has turned this article into the absolute dumpster fire of disorganization and standards violation that it is, and Wikipedia at large has no place for that kind of thinking (or rather lack thereof). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azeranth (talk • contribs) 19:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Agree with above, its a mess and trying to sell the idea of social origins of gender as more settled than it actually is. Notice the WHO link above doesn't support that argument. Also the quote in the article "Therefore, when transgender individuals want to have a sex change operation, they must prove that they can "pass" as a man or woman – so even the choice of changing one's gender is socially constructed." This is just outright wrong and offensive. This may have been the case in the 1970's or prior. That's far from the truth now. That's just one of many examples. Personally, the Gender identity and sexuality/sexual orientation section of the article doesn't even look salvageable to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.77.35.49 (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Sex and Sex Category
For Khling151:
Content-wise, the information seems to be fine!! Most of the edits that need to be made are grammatical, such as removing comma splicing, verb agreement, and introducing definitions more smoothly.Some suggestions:
- Add a colon after Doing Gender (West...Doing Gender:(colon) "Quote here")
- Comma splice in "She claims that there is at the minimum five sexes but probably more, this is based off the vast range of ways bodies show up in nature."
- ("West and Zimmerman also give a good definition for 'Sex category is achieved through...'" does not really make sense as a sentence. What do they give a definition for?).
Mnrszk (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I am fixing the things you pointed out. Khling151 (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Education
For JonJuno:
I think it's pretty good!
There's one part where the same word is repeated twice which hadn't been caught in your editing process:
- "three three third grade teachers" (I don't think you were the one who added this in here though)
It also might be helpful to organize this section even further into a couple paragraphs instead of one big paragraph, for accessibility.
Mnrszk (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment! I agree and have thusly reorganized the paragraph into multiple paragraphs. (embarrassingly that was me...)
JonJuno (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Suggestions for Research Methods
Great work. I feel as if the two sentences
- "The gender dichotomy is so engrained that it is impossible for research findings to remain unaffected by it. People are so convinced that there are inherent differences between men and women, which skews both studies and their findings."
could be more supported with concrete examples or facts. For example, the statement that it is "impossible for research findings to remain unaffected" is a sweeping generalization. Also, saying that "people are so convinced" is quite informal. It could be more precise if reworded as "Many people are convinced"
Also, the last two paragraphs would greatly benefit from adding at least one example of the claims being made. Two statements I have in mind are:
- "poorly-constructed qualitative research can lead to reproduction of race and class biases"
and
- "quantitative research can reinforce gender and cultural assumptions"
If an example of one or both of these statements is added, it would be very nice. Shteveno (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! I changed the wording to be more formal, and I elaborated on the flaws of quantitative and qualitative research.
Absterr08 (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think this is an important example of distinguishing between commentary by third parties, and facts (oh the irony). There is no need to hunt down support for the claim, just remove them. An assertion like the one given only belongs in commentary, which is properly quoted to demonstrate the distinction between claims, commentary, and research (and research methodology)Azeranth (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
The whole section "Research methods" is barely related to the main subject of the article. It strikes me as something created by college students who were required to make some edits for a college course. I would remove the entire section, but will let other editors consider this. Maybe some will see more redeeming value in this section than I. Pete unseth (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Social Change Suggestions
Great edits! One thing that could be revised are the second, third, and fourth sentences of this section:
- The performance of gender reinforces the essentialism of gender categories.[9][52] When an individual performs their gender to the standards set by societal norms, this bolsters the argument of gender essentialism.[53] Essentialism argues that there are essential differences between genders which manifest themselves in differences in gender performance.
The term essentialism is mentioned in the first two sentences and explained in the last one. Perhaps the term can be explained immediately after it is introduced in order to avoid confusion.
Also, it would be nice to briefly introduce (and possibly discuss) the second and third waves of feminism in the end of this section. It will also be nice to link their wikipedia pages if you do decide to include them. Shteveno (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions! I rearranged the content of the first paragraph so that it reads more clearly and added links to second and third wave feminism.Ktmacp (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
"Applications of Gender Performance" suggestions
Impressive contribution! I think a few areas might benefit from a second look:
The intro is currently a pretty big paragraph, which can make reading challenging. It may make sense to remove some material: for instance, the first few sentences after "Butler’s text has become quite influential..." mostly summarize and analyze Butler's text, which has its own wikipedia page. Linking to the page instead and focusing on how Gender Performativity relates to gender performance and real-world applications could make it more accessible.
I also think the two subsections could use some additional sources and more neutral language. For example, in "Infancy and Young Childhood":
- "From the moment we are conceived, some argue even before that, who we are and who we will become is predetermined. We are either given masculine or feminine names based on our sex; we are assigned colors that are deemed appropriate only when utilized by a particular sex; and, we are even given toys that will aid us in recognizing our proper places in society."
Right now those statements aren't verifiable, and using "We are..." statements can come off as giving a generalization. Who says our identities are predetermined? Who is "we"? Adding some sources giving supporting evidence and using a 3rd person point of view would make the statements stronger.
Finally, in the "Teen Year" sections, two phrases popped out to me:
- "As described previously..."
and
- "mentioned previously"
If the information already appears in the section, does it need to be repeated? Cutting out repetitions could make the main points in the new info you added stand out more. Similarly, for:
- "Penelope Eckert, linguistics professor at Stanford University, in her text titled Language and Gender..."
This information is included in the citation already, so removing it wouldn't hurt and could improve readability. Kmt0715 (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. I attempted to minimize the intro paragraph that describes the definition and basic concept of Gender Performativity. I also agreed that the subsections needed a little work, so I took most of your advice and tried to apply it. Again, thank you for the suggestions! Cal95j (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Multiple issues banner removed
A {{Multiple issues}} banner containing {{POV check}}, {{citation style}}, and {{Original research}} advisories from 2012 were removed in this edit without edit summary or discussion. It's true they shouldn't stay up forever, but is everyone okay with this? Mathglot (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've restored the {{POV}} banner, as it was removed without explanation, and since it satisfies the reasons for inclusion as the POV issues remain, at least in the view of some, and since there is a Talk page section for it. See #NPOV_Dispute, above. Mathglot (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Globalize
Much of content of the article refers to a small sliver of the world's population, namely the upper-middle and upper classes, mostly white, living in the richest and most developed countries in the world, primarily the Anglo-Saxon ones. Many statements make generalizations that really refer only or mostly to that very limited sector, and should be qualified with restrictive clauses which make that clear. More importantly, additional material should be added to give a more global view of the topic. Mathglot (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Copyedit: Grammar Corrections, sentence structure, etc.
Gender Identity & Sexuality/Sexual OrientationI feel as if the second paragraph under this subtopic is not of great use to the content of the article itself. It seems to be of a narrative tone and the article would not lose any clarification or validity if this section was deleted.
Core Gender IdentitySentences five and six could easily be conjoined as one by changing to "LaFrance, Paluck and Brescoll note that as a term, "gender identity" allows individuals to express their attitude towards and stance in relation to their current status as either men or women." By combining these two sentences, I feel the point is better covered and easier to understand for the reader.
Intersections of Gender Identity With Other IdentitiesSecond paragraph, Second sentence needs to be corrected to "Hurtado argues that white women and women of color..."There is also an issue with the second to last sentence... "sexual objects and as wikt:recalcitrant and wikt:bawdy women"I am unsure of what these terms are suppose to be.
Gender As AccomplishmentThe first sentence of the section needs a citation from West and Zimmerman as the statement is made according to them
AccountabilityIn the sentence beginning with "social constructionism asserts that gender... the word "is" in "is omnirelevant" should be changed to "as"
In the second paragraph in this section, the reference to machisimo should be hyperlinked to its own wiki page
In the last paragraph of this section, "women and women" needs to changed to "men and women" & the last sentence can be deleted as it has no significance to the section.
5.3 Nurture v. NatureI would like to switch the wording to nature v. nurture as that is how the topic is referenced to commonly.
These are small edits and issues I came across while scanning the article. Would enjoy getting feedback from others to gain their opinions on my ideas for corrections. ThanksStudent1543 (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hello @Student1543:. Looks like you are working on the 9/13 class assignment for Week 4 of your course, am I right? Welcome. I have no special authority here, I'm just an editor here, like you, maybe with a little more experience, so you can take my suggestions for what they're worth, and seek other feedback. I'll respond point-by-point, using initialisms to refer back to your sections (e.g., GI&SSO for Gender Identity & Sexuality/Sexual Orientation). Also, please learn about Section linking, which helps others if you use hyperlinks direct to the section(s) you are talking about. I've used them below, as an example. Note: if any of my suggestions are beyond the scope of your class assignments, feel free to ignore them. These are suggestions, not assignments.
- 1. GI&SSO - I see your point, kind of, if by 'narrative' you mean the example cited about one woman's identity. But I think the lead sentence of the second paragraph states the intent of that paragraph to address the topic of essentialism as a follow-up of the first paragraph, which introduces the concept. I kind of agree with you that the example may not be the best, but that doesn't mean the 2nd paragraph should be deleted, unless you feel that there's no call for a discussion of essentialism in the article at all, or not in that much detail as to require a second paragraph, but I wouldn't agree with you on that point. So, unless you want to make an argument for that, why not see if you can find a better way in paragraph two to provide support for what you find in paragraph one.
- 2. CGI - Sure, sounds good; go for it. Since you're doing a class, it's wise to ask for feedback like you're doing before making the chnage, but in the future when you are more experienced, you could simply go ahead and make a change like this on your own without asking, following the generally accepted editing guideline called Be bold. When you do make a change—any change—to an article, make sure you add a helpful edit summary explaining your change.
- (Just fyi, referring to sentences by number can become problematic, because other editors may change the content in such a way that the numbers become meaningless. Where possible, refer to content, as you did in this example. You can use italics or Template {{Quote}} if you want, to set it off from your text.
- 3. IoGIwOI -
- woman/women: yes, go for it.
- wikt:recalcitrant etc: This is an Interwiki link to a word definition in Wiktionary. You may or may not know that Wikimedia Foundation has other project families like Wiktionary, Wikiquote, and Wikisource of which Wikipedia is just one. Wiktionary is the Wiki dictionary, and
wikt:recalcitrant
is a wikilink that goes to the Wiktionary definition article for the word recalcitrant. I'm not 100% sure, but I think its presentation is improper, as the colon-prefixwikt:
is not supposed to be visible; so rather than code it[[wikt:recalcitrant]]
it should be coded[[wikt:recalcitrant|recalcitrant]]
using a piped link, or even[[wikt:recalcitrant|]]
using the pipe trick. This is a bit advanced for where you are now, so I'd just leave this for now, but I would definitely go have a look at the other Wikimedia properties, because there's a lot of good stuff out there.
- 4. GaA - It may not need a citation, but a judgment call is involved. The first and second sentences both deal with W & Z, and the second sentence already has the W & Z reference. Since the sentences are closely aligned, in my judgement, it is not necessary to add the identical reference after the first sentence, per WP:INTEGRITY and WP:When to cite. By the way, Citing references is a core principle of Wikipedia, so please read Wikipedia:Citing sources if you haven't already, or Help:Referencing for beginners to start out with.
- 5 Acc -
- is/as omnirelevant : Go for it!. By the way, that minor typo is not the only problem here, much of this paragraph (and much of the article) smacks of jargon and needs a rewrite or clarification to make them understandable. So there are bigger fish to fry here, than just this typo.
- machismo - Be bold!
- women and women (last paragraph) -> women and men: Be bold!
- And since you mention it, paragraph 2 also has the confusing construction "women and women", but in this case it is correct, though unclear. There are two clauses there, but the way the sentence is written, that is not clear. The sentence needs a comma, or better, a comma and a relative pronoun. I would change women and women" to "women, and that women".
- last sentence significance - I don't agree that you can just delete this sentence, it has something relevant to say about the topic of the page, and it is sourced. The problem with the sentence, is that it is lost at sea, having nothing to do with the surrounding material. See if you can find a better place for that sentence, somewhere else in the article, perhaps dealing with minority or intersectionality issues.
- 6. 5.3 NvN - Which goes first? This is kind of a minor issue; I suppose the main guideline here would be, "does the change improve the article?" To the extent that you can appeal to frequency of common usage which is about 12:1 in favor of your suggestion, it's probably a (minor) improvement.
- Oh, one other thing: note that section headings are in sentence case, not title case per MOS:SECTIONS, so only the first word is capitalized. So not Core Gender Identity as you have it above, but Core gender identity. Likewise with all your other bolded terms above. Mathglot (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Edits being made
Thank you Mathglot for your opinions and contributions.1. GI&SSO - I agree with your point on the use of the example as an example of essentialism, and therefore, I am going to leave the section as it is.2. CGI - Decided to combine the two sentences3. IoGIwOI-
- changing woman to women
- not altering the connection between wiktionary
4. GaA - I agree that a citation is not necessarily needed in this instance, and therefore I am not adding one here.5. Acc -
- changing is / as and am considering digging deeper into this section for greater content corrections
- linking machismo
- changing women and women & am also going to use your suggestions to alter paragraph 2 as well
- I agree with your opinion on not deleting this last sentence due to its signifigance, but hope to find or create a section where it would be more relevant later on
6. NvN - Going to change to Nature v. NurtureThanks for your suggestions Student1543 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Student1543: Looks good. In the expression "..created a Machismo masculinity..." I lower-cased "machismo".
- Minor point concerning Talk page usage: Since your comments above (18:47 14 Sept.) are a follow-up comment to the thread at #Copyedit: Grammar Corrections, sentence structure, etc. above, you didn't need to create a new section "Edits being made" for your reply. New sections are generally for new topics; to reply to a thread about an existing topic, just edit the section, and add your comments indented one more level than the comments above, using the colon metacharacter. To learn more about this, see WP:INDENT.
- To link to a user, use
[[User:users name here]]
, for example:[[User:Mathglot]]
renders as User:Mathglot, and[[User:Student1543]]
renders as User:Student1543. - To page a user to come look at the Talk page you just edited, use {{ping}} like this:
{{ping|users name here}}
. The at-sign you see above is the result of a {{ping}} paging you. (You can page as many people as you want, in one ping.) - To automatically find out when somebody changes a page you are interested in, even if they don't ping you, put the page on your watchlist.
- Don't forget to sign your Talk page entries with four tildes (
~~~~
). Three tildes will add your name, but omit the date. Mathglot (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Adding Information
Under section Infancy and young childhood I would like to add more information after the sentence ending with "are even toys that will aid them in recognizing their proper places in society." After this sentence I would like to add
According to Barbara Kerr and Karen Multon, many parents would be puzzled to know "the tendency of littlechildren to think that it is their clothing or toys that make them boy or girl."[1]
Student1543 (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Deletion
Would anyone else agree upon the idea of deleting the last paragraph from Infancy and young childhood? I realize this paragraph does provide further explanation of the proposed idea of "gender performativity" but I do not see the need for the information. It is good information, but I just don't see it as pertinent information for this subtopic. Would anyone else agree? I don't want to remove the information if other's see a great need for it.Student1543 (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Resources
Here are a few resources I have found that could be a great benefit to the content of this article1. The Development of Gender Identity,Gender Roles, and Gender Relations in Gifted Students[1]2. From Pink Frilly Dresses to 'One of the Boys': A Social-Cognitive Analysis of Gender Identity Development and Gender Bias.[2]3. MASCULINITY, MALE DEVELOPMENT,GENDER, AND IDENTITY: MODERN AND POSTMODERN MEANINGS
- Great information on gender roles and their influence on developing gender on page 407: Gender Role Strain Theory and Masculinity
Addition To Page
I am proposing an addition to the page under Social construction of gender during development. I want to add a section under this to introduce the concept and the following subtopics.
- I have also made updated changes to this contribution proposal
Gender features strongly in most societies and is a significant aspect of self-definition for most people.[1] One way to analyze the social influences that affect the development of gender is through the perspective of the social cognitive theory. According to Kay Bussey, social cognitive theory describes “how gender conceptions are developed and transformed across the life span".[2] The social cognitive theory views gender roles as socially constructed ideas that are obtained over one’s entire lifetime. These gender roles are “repeatedly reinforced through socialization".[3] Hackman verifies that these gender roles are instilled in us from “the moment we are born".[4] For the individual, gender construction starts with assignments to a sex category on the basis of biological genitalia at birth.[5] Following this sexual assignment, parents begin to influence gender identity by dressing children in ways that clearly display this biological category. Therefore, biological sex becomes associated with a gender through naming, dress, and the use of other gender markers.[6] Gender development continues to be affected by the outlooks of others, education institutions, parenting, media, etc. These variations of social interactions force individuals to “learn what is expected, see what is expected, act and react in expected ways, and thus simultaneously construct and maintain the gender order".[7]
Student1543 (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- That's really nice and all but appears to be just some guys opinion or summary of some possibly existing theory. It would be much nicer to have some real fact/evidence about how these things work also in my opinion. Like what research results leads this guy to think like this etc. 88.195.243.29 (talk) 09:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Pertinent Quality Resources
Theorizing Sexuality and Gender in Development. By: Bergstrom-Borins, Adryan[1]
MASCULINITY, MALE DEVELOPMENT,GENDER, AND IDENTITY: MODERN AND POSTMODERN MEANINGS (Phillips, Debby A.) Great information on gender roles and their influence on developing gender on page 407: Gender Role Strain Theory and Masculinity[2]
The Development of Gender Identity,Gender Roles, and Gender Relations in Gifted Students Kerr, Barbara A. Multon, Karen D. [3]
The Influence of Parental Attitudes and Behaviors on Children's Attitudes Toward Gender and Household Labor in Early Adulthood. Cunningham, Mick [4]
PARENTAL INFLUENCE ON CHILDREN'S SOCIALIZATION TO GENDER ROLES By: Witt, Susan D.[5]
Gender-role Attitudes in Middle Childhood: In What Ways Do Parents Influence Their Children? Antill, John K., Cunningham, John D., Cotton, Sandra[6]
Gender differences in adolescent sexual attitudes: The influence of individual and family factors. Werner-Wilson, Ronald Jay[7]
Readings for Diversity and Social Justice 3rd Edition[8]
Student1543 (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)