Talk:Woman/Archive 18

Subjective notions aren't a part of biology and sex past the brain. Gender identity is a complex word, rooted in psychoanalysis and a target for assessment in gender dysphoria. Nothing about gender identity in women is particularly relevant enough for this article that it shouldn't be under gender identity. Maneesh (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Maneesh, you are aware that reliable sources state that "woman" is, among other things, a gender identity, yes?

I thought the purpose of the paragraph you removed was to indicate that gender identity can differ from sex assignment, a fact that is certainly relevant to this article. Of course I would rather that gender identity have its own section in Woman, but I haven't yet achieved consensus for that. The supporting sources do continue to accumulate, though, so I see it as a matter of time. Newimpartial (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Section title is 'biology and sex' (not 'sex assignment'); everything in that section is, naturally, about female biology. 'Gender identity' isn't relevant to that section, that's all there is to it. Maneesh (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

If the scope of that section is people with what you call "female biology" (and I call AFAB), and some of those people are in fact not women but rather men in terms of their gender identity, don't you think it is helpful to the reader to point that fact out? This is literally the distinction on Twitter between "women" and "menstruators", and blood is spilled on that issue nearly every day. Newimpartial (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

"People with female biology" is not identically equal to "AFAB"; the purpose of the term "AFAB" is to indicate the map-territory distinction between sex assignment and sex. gnu57 00:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)a

Not identically equal, no, nor did I say that it was. But people who are identified as having so-called "female biology" are typically those who are assigned female at birth, that being the whole point of such assignment in modern and/or "Western" societies. Newimpartial (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

It's covered properly under Terminology and in the lead; and bottom line, a 21 year old book from Basic Books is not a WP:MEDRS. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

{{subst:trim|1=

maybe an article about when a woman is perfect is in place here

Yohup (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

A woman is not defined as an adult female. A woman can be a biologic or sex changed male or female who chooses to live socially as a woman. "Woman" is defined as a social choice, and anything making adult female equivalent to being a woman is incorrectly assigning them a social label. An adult female is an adult female. A woman is a person deciding to put a label on themself. Fixitperson2021 (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Oxford English Dictionary defines 'woman' as 'An adult female human being.' See also WP:RGW. Melmann 16:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Who defines "woman" as a self-labelling term? Dimadick (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Yikes more "gender identity" related problems in the article. The cite in the lede to Morrow and Messinger modifies the quote to "woman"(the very subject of this article) and "man" when the cite uses "feminine" and "masculine". This is really a misrepresentation of the source, especially in the context of this article. Maneesh (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Just want to say that I completely agree with User Maneesh's action here, it's such a bizarre modification, I have no idea what whoever added that in was thinking. The actual Morrow and Messinger quote isn't necessarily irrelevant here, it just doesn't comport to what's written on the page. Perhaps we should add it back and modify the text to fit the source? Joe (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmm the original quote does not seem to say anything about the term 'woman'. It does say something about 'gender identity' but defines that term in terms of sex stereotypes (feminine and masculine). Maneesh (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the basic phenotypic sex differences that are outlined in the lede reflected appropriately in the body. The ones in the lede read to me as appropriately representative of the first order average differences between women and men. Maneesh (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Change “…13th century had begun…” to “…13th century it had begun…” 174.23.144.245 (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I changed it because that’s not technically how intersex is defined in biology.

In the book right here on pages 116 to 117 define intersex as organisms with a mixture of male and female sex characteristics.

This article follows a similar definition.

So does this book

So I’m not making shit up here. CycoMa (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The current way intersex is discussed in this article is very poor: "intersex women have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology" may be true, but that claim is also true of any low prevalence condition (cervical cancer, tetrachromacy etc.). The sentence is misleading since it suggests that intersex women are generally something other than adult human females. No matter what common definition of "intersex" is used, most intersex women are plain old adult human females. Intersex isn't worth mentioning in this article and is WP:UNDUE. Maneesh (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You have a source for No matter what common definition of "intersex" is used, most intersex women are plain old adult human females? Because I for one thought that the whole reason for the mention was that intersex women meet certain criteria for female but not others.

And to CycloMa - this article isn't only about biology, so maybe check your attitude. Thx. Newimpartial (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You can go to Intersex#Population_figures. What proportion of females with intersex conditions meet the criteria for being female? Maneesh (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't that depend on the defining characteristics used for "female"? Newimpartial (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It does, luckily there is a very clear WP:MEDRS consensus around the idea of female.Maneesh (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This is actually a hilarious discussion. Maybe you could answer the question I asked of CycloMa, From your own preferred source, what percentage of intersex women do have all of the sex characteristics that are typically "female"? That would be more relevant than debating what definition of "female" will fit on the head of a pin. Also, you know perfectly well that "female", like "woman", is a term used in many contexts in which MEDRS is a complete irrelevancy. Newimpartial (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Not engaging any further. Female is a straightforward biological category that is elementary in biology and medicine and commonly understood, not much to it past that. Maneesh (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Female is a straightforward biological category that is elementary in biology and medicine and commonly understood - yes, and intersex women as a group lack at least one of the typically female sex characteristics. The fact that they are not the only group of women that do so (for example all infertile women lack at least one typical female characteristic, and most of these women are not intersex) is strictly irrelevant to the fact that they are a group for whom boundary issues arise. Newimpartial (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not anything resembling credible reasoning. Females with intersex conditions are not defined by "lack[ing] at least one of the typically female sex characteristics" nor do boundary issues arise for *any* females with intersex conditions.Maneesh (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

That sounds a lot like a dogmatic POV unsupported by evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Um the article says. “while intersex women have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology.” It is talking them not being the typical notion in female biology. It clearly misunderstands what intersex is from a biological perspective. CycoMa (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

From your own preferred source, what percentage of intersex women do have all of the sex characteristics that are typically "female"? Newimpartial (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: I believe you are missing my point. What I am trying to say is that sentence is talking about biology but misunderstands biological terms. CycoMa (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I am finding this discussion very funny. You know that the article text is referring to sex characteristics in relation to norms, right, not in relation to the typical notion in female biology? (Whatever that would even mean.) So, do you think you could humor me by answering my previous question? Newimpartial (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad Crossroads is trying but I think the contrived nature of the claim is even more apparent now: "...while intersex women may have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology". There is a well known list of very different intersex conditions, which ones is this sentence trying to refer to? Maneesh (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Replying to Newimpartial: You appear to be misunderstanding how 'female' is defined in biology and medicine. It is not based on all of the sex characteristics that are typically "female". It is defined by the developmental pathway for bearing the larger gamete (ova), which in humans develops when there is no Y chromosome. The correct statement is that intersex women "may have" characteristics that differ from typical notions, not that they necessarily do or that it was observed at birth. For example, the condition that is by far the largest of those sometimes considered intersex, LOCAH, is not observable at birth ("late-onset" is in the name), and is asymptomatic in many women: Many women have no symptoms at all: “Probably many affected individuals are asymptomatic,” notes another recent review (White, 2001, p. 25). [1] (Note: this is a highly cited peer-reviewed paper that just happens to be hosted on the author's personal site.) Crossroads ^-talk- 04:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

And it follows that why is a set women that women with LOCAH are representative of, need to be mentioned in this article (WP:PROPORTION)? Women with LOCAH are, plainly, women (the effects of LOCAH are, of course, rather sex specific). There are many many other sets of women that should be mentioned in this article if LOCAH has some special status. Maneesh (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, the article now reads may have, which I understand to be acceptable terminology. Whether or not LOCAH is considered an intersex condition - and I have seen editors make unsupportably opportunistic arguments on that point to "win" very narrow talk page arguments - the fact remains that intersex conditions often do result in atypical sex characteristics. What is more, the article is actually referring to typical notions of female biology, not a narrow MEDRS definition of female. While the phrase used in the article may not be the most elegant one possible, your move to a purely chromosomal definition is, ahem, not entirely appropriate in the context of this article's lede. Newimpartial (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

This is, again, not credible reasoning. Crossroad's claim that female is defined by the developmental pathway for bearing the larger gamete (ova), which in humans develops when there is no Y chromosome. is a reflection of *elementary biology* and generalizes just fine to "intersex" X0, XXX females. Maneesh (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

That may or may not be true, but it has no particular bearing on the present article, which is not about biology: *elementary* or otherwise. Newimpartial (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

It is true, is very relevant to the section and the article. Maneesh (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

If you'd like, we could RfC whether the chromosomal definition of "female" is DUE for the lead section of this article? Newimpartial (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no real "chromosomal definition" of female, there is just the biological one. In humans a female is one who has the potential to produce ova, you only need to look out the window to know that is true. "Humans with XX chromosomes" covers >> 99% of such people, is a fine first order approximation and is covered appropriately in this article with "typically". This article uses "female" without any concern that I can see. Even on the intersex line under discussion here, it is not the way "female" is being used, it is about the concerns that I've already outline above. Maneesh (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I would advise not getting into a debate about ontology here. Put LOCAH aside for a moment. The fact is that some intersex women - people who identify and present as women but with whatever birth anatomy - do not have the anatomy that is detailed before that in the lead. So intersex women "may have sex characteristics that do not fit [the aforementioned] typical notions of female biology". Crossroads ^-talk- 05:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of intersex women *do* do have the anatomy that is detailed before that in the lead. Be specific.Maneesh (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

But some do not. And the first sentence of that paragraph - Typically, a woman has two X chromosomes and is capable of pregnancy and giving birth from puberty until menopause - is also not true of many intersex women. Newimpartial (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Chromosomes are not anatomy. Triple X women have normal fertility. Turner are usually (not always) infertile but capable of pregnancy and giving birth via IVF (EDIT: I should say donated eggs to be specific). Maneesh (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Did I ever say or imply that any intersex women have none of these characteristics at all? Or did I ever confuse anatomy with chromosomes? No; no, I did not do either of this things. Newimpartial (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Read Crossroads original claim above yours. "Not true of many" doesn't really matter, it's about what represents the class of intersex women. WP:PROPORTION tells you that intersex women aren't a particularly distingushed class of women, they're just women with a diverse set of conditions that mostly are specific to their sex. Maneesh (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Is Crossroads' statement, some intersex women - people who identify and present as women but with whatever birth anatomy - do not have the anatomy that is detailed before that in the lead true? Yes, it is. Is my statement that the other sentence from the same paragraph, Typically, a woman has two X chromosomes and is capable of pregnancy and giving birth from puberty until menopause, is also not true of many intersex women - is that statement also true? Yes, it is. Are those two statements, Crossroads' and mine, relevant to the question of "who comprises the class of women as a whole"? Yes, they are. Please step away from the horse carcass. Newimpartial (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, WP:PROPORTION. You are free to leave the thread if you like. Maneesh (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

If you would like to RfC or take to NPOVN whether the third paragraph (of the lead) is DUE or not, those would be appropriate routes for you to take. Monological contributions to this Talk page, however, will not help to resolve the issue. Newimpartial (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't need to say more than WP:PROPORTION, it captures the problem quite well and perhaps will invite responses from other editors andmay help resolve the issue; that is totally appropriate in my view.Maneesh (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

My strong suspicion is that everything you do as an editor is totally appropriate in [your] view. However, unless you convince other editors that the correct application of WP:NPOV (the policy of which PROPORTION is a part) requires that the mention of intersex women be expunged from the lede, you are as they say whistling into the wind. Newimpartial (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Convincing other editors takes time and that's what this thread is for, you're free to keep responding and claiming that it doesn't work. In the meantime I would like to hear from CycoMa and Crossroads given I've been addressing them mostly. Maneesh (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

TheRightofHerWay correctly removed "breasts" from "Female anatomy, as distinguished from male anatomy, includes the fallopian tubes, ovaries, uterus, vulva, breasts, Skene's glands, and Bartholin's glands.". Praxidicae reverted, I reinstated the TheRightofHerWay's edit which was again reverted by Praxidicae. It is well known that both males and females have breasts. My original edit summary: "actually the edit seems correct (the summary was a little rambly). Female anatomy is categorically distinguished from male anatomy with ovaries etc., but it is a matter of size/development with breasts (not categorical). Breasts could go in following sentence (with hips etc.)." Maneesh (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Breasts are a secondary sex characteristic of women. See the sources at that article. Mathglot (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Even that article correctly qualifies many claims with "female" and describes differences in terms of development. You need to look at the article breast. The fact that males have breasts and that female breasts develop more is nor OR as you have claimed in your revert. Look on google, look at reliable medical sources. How can there be a spectrum of disease in the male breast if males don't have breasts? Why does medical research talk carefully about human breast development? How could fetal male breast samples be used in such studies? None of this is controversial, it is basic anatomy. The differences between male and female breasts are a matter of development, but ovaries are a categorically distinct tissue from testes. Maneesh (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with Maneesh (talk · contribs) here. The definition of breast on our page for it includes the line Both females and males develop breasts from the same embryological tissues right in the lead. Given that we're using that definition, which since we're linking it in the passage in controversy I don't see why we wouldn't, "both males and females have breasts" is so obvious it doesn't need a source. Loki (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this change, if not the edit war which preceded this discussion. It's consistent with how Secondary sexual characteristics describes it. Male humans do have both breasts and mammary glands. Enlarged breasts are a female characteristic, but the past phrasing implied that they are a female-only anatomical feature. I'd also support alternative phrasing like Female anatomy, [...] includes the [...] fallopian tubes, [...] larger breasts, etc, but I think this edit is fine as it is. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 02:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Cheers to TheRightofHerWay for being 100% correct on this. I should not have referred to their edit summary as 'rambly' as, given the number of reverts, editors needed every hint they could get here. Maneesh (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you ! I appreciate the support ...and the facts ! TheRightofHerWay (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The misrepresentation in the earlier cite that replaced "woman" with "feminine" has now been replaced but it really looks like WP:SYNTH. The quotes that are presumably being use to support the claim are: "A term used to describe someone who is assigned male at birth but identifies and lives as a woman.", there is no mention of 'trans woman' in the WPATH doc and " A trans woman is someone who identifies as a woman but was designated male at birth.". I don't think Vox qualifies as WP:RS here. None of the quotes define "trans woman" in terms of gender identity or make claims about alignment. "Identifying" as something is quite different than some sort of claim about psychometric assessment of gender identity. Maneesh (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you mean by "some claim of psychometric assessment". The term trans woman means a woman who is transgender or transsexual, and being transgender means having a gender identity which is different from assigned sex at birth. This sentence synthesizes those two definitions in a way which seems perfectly proper, and is essentially the same as the lead sentence of the article Trans woman. Is aligned with is taken here to simply mean is different from. Can you clarify the issue? RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 22:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I suspect you are not familiar with the use of 'gender identity" used by authors like Zucker on the WPATH (mentioned above) report. There are well known disparities between gender identity as used to diagnose gender dysphoria and "identification". Maneesh (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Maneesh, the same sources that use the term "identify" also define transgender people as "identifying as" in the precise sense of "having a gender identity as". This distinction between "identifying" and "having a gender identity" may apply to certain sources, but not to these. Newimpartial (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

High quality WP:MEDRS resource do not make this equivocation, see above.Maneesh (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Zucker is not a recent RS on this topic. Tending towards FRINGE. Furthermore, MEDRS doesn't apply to most of this article. Newimpartial (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

What a dubious accusation of FRINGE, *you* cited a paper that he is an author on. What in the world are you saying? Maneesh (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Have you not been following his career? There is a trajectory. As far as the paper is concerned, it has more than 20 authors, and he is last (though I suppose that is alphabetical). I wasn't citing it based on his personal authority lol.Newimpartial (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Not going to engage in any WP:FORUM discussion with you about WP:RS authored by Zucker (who continues to publish WP:RS). Maneesh (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Maneesh: If I understand what's being said, this seems pedantic at best. WPATH's glossary (p. 94) makes clear "For most people, gender identity and expression are consistent with their sex assigned at birth; for transsexual, transgender, and gender-nonconforming individuals, gender identity or expression differ from their sex assigned at birth." I'm confused what the exact problem is with the language in question. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Not pedantic at all. Gender identity is plainly a clinical tool used in the assessment of gender dysphoria, look at WP:RS sources below. This fact does not conflict with the your quote. Zucker is an author of quote you cite as he is the author of the papers I cite below. Maneesh (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

An idiosyncratic distinction made by one discredited sexologist between "identifying" and having an "identity" is not relevant to other sources which don't assert such a distinction, at least the first of which adequately verifies the content in question. (Which is basic content present in the lead of the linked article, as someone else pointed out above.) As the content is not medical, the invocation of MEDRS is peculiar. -sche (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The above comment disturbing in its attempt to smear the author of WP:RS and to suggest such research is "idiosyncratic". The disparity between identification and the meaurement of gender identity is basic knowledge in this field. Equating the two simply isn't correct. To suggest cited, peer reviewed published scientific work of this nature is not MEDRS is peculiar. Maneesh (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Maneesh: The wiki article you link to (gender identity) contradicts your point which, to be sure i'm understanding correctly and not misreading, is the claim that "gender identity" and "identifying as foobar" are not the same thing. The Zucker 2005 article you cite says it is addressing "an overview of various measures pertaining to gender identity, gender role, and sexual orientation that have been used in assessment studies of two clinical populations..." but this article explicitly states that it is showing "measures for the assessment of gender identity...". By saying "Gender identity is plainly a clinical tool used in the assessment of gender dysphoria" above, you appear to be confusing the instrument and its operationalizations for the concept itself. Gender identity is not the measures, its the latent variable the measures try to assess through manifest variables such as self report, observed behaviors, etc.

You say that Zucker is using "gender identity" differently, but I do not see that in the cited texts. Saying that "there are well known disparities between gender identity as used to diagnose gender dysphoria and "identification" is missing the distinction itself. A transgender identity need not be dysphoric. If dysphoria is present and causes disruption to one's life, negative affect, maladaptive behaviors, etc. then it's a disorder resulting from the dysphoria the gender identity produces. The gender identity, which is still what one identifies as, is separate from the measures of GID just as depression (the subjective emotional state) can be separate from clinical or major depression (the diagnosis).

The operational definition is not the theoretical definition; pulselessness, hypoxia, unconsciousness, non-breathing are not death but just indixators of it. The psychometric assessments themselves (IQ, PHQ, BDI, Bem's SRI, etc.) are not the concepts they attempt to measure (intelligence, depression, gender expression) and I don't see anywhere in this article where the instruments/measures/psychometrics are being referred to explicitly. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The interpretation of "gender identity" is fraught but the resolution is not as straightforward as you suggest with analogy to things like a pulse and death. There has has been a prominent public debate that broadly deals with some of these issues; getting into that would turn this into WP:FORUM. Rather than do that, it seems to make sense to avoid the controversy and avoid WP:SYNTH and use what the sources say accurately. This began with the discovery of a very problematic misrepresentation used to support "Trans women have a male sex assignment at birth that does not align with their gender identity", there is no world in which "woman" can be substituted with "feminine" in this way; the misrepresentation highlights the importance of being accurate here. Any previous consensus to keep the sentence on trans women was presumably based on this misrepresentation. The WPATH source is a long article that (clearly very carefully) does not mention any form of 'trans woman' once. The stonewall source says "A term used to describe someone who is assigned male at birth but identifies and lives as a woman.", if that source is reliable, just use that accurately (it is quite concise). There are obvious other synths to be made, e.g., "assignment" is just the observation of what sex someone is, so why not plainly synthesize it to say "A term used to describe someone who is male identifies and lives as a woman". It doesn't even make sense given that a number of 46, XX CAH females were "assigned male" but are (of course) female, these females are not "trans women". Maneesh (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Some editors would claim that they are. I came across a BLP article that was about a man that had been mistakenly assigned the wrong sex at birth, and this was not discovered till he was a bit older (but still young; and this was, I think, in the 1960s, or maybe 1970 when he discovered he was actually male). Anyway, the article called him a "transgender man"; and NONE of the sources said anything even remotely close up this, nor even mentioned transsexuality at all (and "transgender" didn't exist yet as a concept so they couldn't have mentioned that). These are some of the consequences of replacing plain "male" and "female" with "assigned at birth": which is really only appropriate in cases of intersex or errors (i.e., the

delivery room doctor's glasses had broken and she couldn't see well enough to make an accurate declaration and picked the wrong one) - and it's only a matter of time before some serious medical error gets made (like someone gets a sex-specific cancer because they weren't screened as they should have been or they're given the wrong medicine etc because some nurse writes down the wrong information due to hyper-wokeness taken to extremes. Sorry for the tangent; it is still relevent, though, because, like it or not, males and females have completely different sets of health and medical scopes that aren't determined by how they "identify", and being careless with language can have potentially disastrous consequences. Firejuggler86 (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Query to Maneesh - concerning your statement: there is no world in which "woman" can be substituted with "feminine" in this way; the misrepresentation highlights the importance of being accurate here. Any previous consensus to keep the sentence on trans women was presumably based on this misrepresentation - I don't see anything in the current version of the article that supports your interpretation that the "previous consensus ... was ... based on this misinterpretation". Do you have any basis, either in the current text of the article or in previous discussions among editors, for making this claim? It sounds like a misreading of the article as it currently stands. Newimpartial (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I had the same question. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

? Look a few sections up at "Morrow and Messinger quote". You don't see it in the current version because I removed the cite just a few days ago. It's good that it is gone, but that problem was long standing (casually looking at least since 2017) and must've mislead many readers.Maneesh (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Exploring sources

Ok, so Maneesh it seems that your primary concern with the current version of the article is the two sources.

• GLAAD (also here) says "Used as shorthand to mean transgender or transsexual" and "A person's internal, deeply held sense of their gender. For transgender people, their own internal gender identity does not match the sex they were assigned at birth." It also says "Transgender should always be used as an adjective. For example, "Susan is a transgender woman." If your audience needs clarification about what that phrase means, you can explain that "Susan was designated male at birth, and began her transition 15 years ago."" Both links use "transgender women" in them as well.

• American Psychological Association (APA) (also here) says:
  • "Gender identity: An internal sense of being male, female or something else, which may or may not correspond to an individual's sex assigned at birth or sex characteristics."
  • "Transgender: An umbrella term encompassing those whose gender identities or gender roles differ from those typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth."
  • "Gender Identity: A person’s deeply‐felt, inherent sense of being a boy, a man, or male; a girl, a woman, or female; or an alternative gender (e.g., genderqueer, gender nonconforming, gender neutral) that may or may not correspond to a person’s sex assigned at birth or to a person’s primary or secondary sex characteristics. Since gender identity is internal, a person’s gender identity is not necessarily visible to others. “Affirmed gender identity” refers to a person’s gender identity after coming out as TGNC or undergoing a social and/or medical transition process."

• CDC says "Transgender is an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity or expression (masculine, feminine, other) is different from their sex (male, female) at birth. Gender identity refers to one’s internal understanding of one’s own gender, or the gender with which a person identifies."

• HHS uses "transgender woman" multiple times. BBC does as well.

I also found a lot of university sources, mostly from their diversity/inclusion units, defining these terms. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

You can see the problems in using gender identity glibly from your own sources. APA says transgender could mean gender identity or gender roles. Are women who do not conform to feminine gender roles then "trans women"? The CDC definition has the same issue. By these definitions most people are probably transgender.

From Diamond: "Transsexual (male to female)...Here the individual is obviously aware of his sex as a male but yearns to live as a woman. Although he is aware he is a male, his sexual identity is female. And he knows his gender identity, as male, the way he had been perceived by others in his community, was not in keeping with the person he imagined himself to be. His present condition at this time, before transsexual surgery, is as a woman. After male-to-female surgery his gender identity and sexual identity will match.

From Zucker and Bradley: "Gender identity refers to a person’s basic sense of self as male or female. It includes both the awareness that one is male or female and an affective appraisal of such knowledge."

From Bailey, affective vs. cognitive gender identity: "A third area of likely difference is gender identity, that is, degree of comfort with assigned sex and desire to be a member of the other sex. We are concerned with affective gender identity rather than cognitive gender identity, that is, believing that one is a girl versus a boy. The distribution of the affective component is continuous, ranging from normal comfort with and unquestioned acceptance of assigned sex to extreme discomfort and rejection. At the most extreme during adulthood, this is transsexualism."

These definitions include ideas like "knowing", "awareness" and "affective appraisal". With these definitions a "trans woman" would have a male gender identity and some negative affective component associated with that knowledge; quite different from something like an "internal sense of being female". Maneesh (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The Diamond source from 19 years ago is definitely out of date with regard to terminology. In today's reckoning, trans women have a female gender identity because gender identity is defined based on someone's internal feelings alone. Sexual identity nowadays is the identity of one's sexuality or sexual orientation rather than of their sex. I'm not really seeing any grounds for changing the sentence's wording. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Gender identity is a vague word but it hasn't somehow inverted itself in a few years in the academic literature. Clinical work on gender identity disorder/dysphoria uses the word carefully as the quotes show. "Gender identity" rarely refers just to the cognitive knowledge that one is male or female, it refers to the relationship between the accurate knowledge that one is male or female and the negative affective component that relates to that knowledge. Maneesh (talk)

And to be sure, Diamond isn't out of date. Still cited in recent years in highlighting the controversy around terms like "gender identity", from Ware: "Do sex-and-gender, as conflated, reasonably apply to transgenderism? If they are conflated, then an identity of gender encompasses an identity of physical sex and implies a need to be a sex as well as a gender. But the sex and gender correlation is inverse with trans people, even if we don’t know exactly how much so (Collin, Reisner, Tangpricha, & Goodman, 2016; Conway, 2012; The Williams Institute, 2016). So “gender identity,” in practical application, really means—what? Just gender? Both sex and gender? Is sex identity something we are not supposed to mention (Diamond, 2002; Kotula, 2002)?". Maneesh (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by the accurate knowledge that one is male or female, above? Are you referring to physiology, or identity, or something else? That just isn't a kind of statement I've seen recent sources use. Newimpartial (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Just a guess, but I would think that would be opposed to "delusional" (inaccurate) knowledge.

@EvergreenFir: Or a matter related to cognitive development as the sources above discuss.Maneesh (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Maneesh: It appears that you wish to debate how the term should be used in academia. We are here to determine how it is used and reflect that without judgement (WP:NPOV). The mainstream use of "gender identity" is as the APA describes. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Nope, these sources show how it *is* used in clinical science in the context of doing things like understanding "tomboys" and treating gender dysphoria. Maneesh (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

We are by no means limited to clinical psychology here. This article and the topic of gender identity are not about diagnoses in the DSM EvergreenFir (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll leave it at it would be best to avoid relatively fuzzy notions like "gender identity" in an article about adult human females. Gender identity can mean very different things in different contexts and is the subject of controversy.Maneesh (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I tend not to think of concepts that have been operationalized by demographers as fuzzy notions, myself, but evidently perspectives differ. Newimpartial (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss and help to select image options for an RfC for the lead image. Discussion at Talk:Woman/sandbox.

Previous discussions can be found by searching the archives for "lead image". Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This has indeed been discussed quite a bit and has been stable for a long time. I don't see any reason to try to change this now nor any issue with the one currently there. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes it has been much discussed and it is clear there is no consensus for the current image; it simply remains as the status quo because there has been no consensus on any option proposed thus far. An RfC will be necessary. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps... Hopefully you will ask for agreement on the wording used. I just remember that I thought your choice of a middle-aged white woman with long, kinky bleached hair was far from the best choice. Gandydancer (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, there is consensus for the current image. Consensus is not unanimity, of course. Per WP:RFCBEFORE, I would like to know what is wrong with the current picture. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The previous discussions already answered your question and meet WP:RFCBEFORE. This discussion is about selecting options for the RfC, one of which will be the status quo image. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed RfC

WITHDRAWN

The image choices need more input (see below), and "no image" should be included as an option. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Which of these photos is best for the lead image? (Please rank.)

I had asked for advice at WT:RFC#Advice for Woman lead image RfC. Would this be ok? FYI Gandydancer Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose any single lead image - I know that I (and many others) have said this in the past, but to reiterate: a series of RfCs determined that we should not have galleries of images in the lead of "topics about large human populations". The reason for this is the conflict selection of the images generates, and the difficulty of choosing just a small set of images to represent a large group of people. Those issues are exacerbated, not assuaged, by reducing the number of lead images to just one. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I guess another way of putting this is "any such RfC needs to include 'none'" — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Do you support this RfC as is but with no image as an option? Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I mean, if there are only three choices, it seems odd that two of the three appear to be the same person, but I'd defer to those who have stronger opinions about specific options than I do. Again, it doesn't matter so much what the image options are as far as my opinion goes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Yeah, it's just what I was able to find. One of the only portrait photographers on Flickr who I found who took normal photos of people took a lot of photos of this woman who I assume is his wife. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• These choices are poor. B. has and awkward pose with the body facing right and thus away from the text of the article (MOS:IMAGELOCATION). As for C., why on Earth would we use a manipulated photo for a topic like this where it is totally unnecessary? There are billions of potential freely-licensed photographs for this topic and it's a good idea to continue the unstructured Sandbox discussion for a while before jumping to an RFC. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I see that MOS:IMAGELOCATION says that "It is often preferable to place images of people so that they 'look' toward the text", not that they should be oriented or even facing towards the text, unless I'm missing something. But please do contribute more images that you find. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image candidates for RfC

Currently supported options

• 
  striped shirt preview
• 
  bracelet preview
• blue sash
  blue sash
• 
  hut
• 
  pink shirt2

The current image and "no image" will be options im the RfC.

Additional options

• 
  gray coat preview
• 
  sleeveless blue preview
• 
  orange floral preview
• 
  red wall
• 
  Asian women with politician
• 
  African and American politicians
• 
  Asian fashion founder

Discussion

I moved this image discussion over from Talk:Woman/sandbox, where @Nagualdesign, JoePhin, Randy Kryn, Volteer1, Finnusertop, Genericusername57, and Gandydancer: offered input. Are we able to narrow down the choices at all? Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Per WP "The Han Chinese are the world's largest single ethnic group, constituting over 19% of the global population in 2011.[86] The world's most-spoken first languages are Mandarin Chinese (spoken by 12.4% of the world's population)." This suggests to me that the "blue sash" woman would be a good choice. Perhaps #2 would work as well. It would seem odd to use, for instance, a white-skinned woman when she is a minority, etc. Gandydancer (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

They're all acceptable to me, but if I were to state a preference, I would say blue sash or bracelet. I like having a full body image to demonstrate a thing, if possible, and while none of the images quite meet that desire, blue sash and bracelet do more. Also, while I don't think the image has to be a woman of Han Chinese descent, I don't disagree with User Gandydancer's reasoning on that front: a representative image isn't bad, not bad at all. Those are my two top picks. Joe (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• My top pick is "blue sash," but I'll wait for the RfC to vote. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut, I just added a couple of pictures to the "Additonal options" section. I was looking for a group picture because of the suggestion to have more than one picture. I think the "red wall" would have to be cropped. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hillary and Nancy may be representative of something (and by you saying that Nancy Pelosi would have to be cropped at least gives a common sense objection), but not of all women, thank goddess. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The current image of the woman working is perfect. It’s a blend of culture which is great. She looks professional and competent. I’m proud to have her representing all women. Props to the person who found it. TheRightofHerWay (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Transcendent Presence left this message on my talk page, regarding this change that they made (which I undid):

I noticed you undid one of my recent edits to woman and was wondering if we could in the spirit of Ebert and Woodburn discuss the issue.

I was under the impression that it was simply more specific and not any less accurate as there a three kinds of woman from an anatomical perspective Transgender, Intersex and Biological and as only Biological women who are assigned female at birth possess the aforementioned psychical abilities I thought it less confusing and vague than "typically" If I am incorrect and it is less accurate I would love to learn why. thanks

A couple of points:

1. Mainstream sources rarely use the term "biological women". The phrases "cisgender women" or "assigned female at birth" are more widely accepted. (If you search NYTimes.com, for example, you'll find that the paper hasn't used the phrase "biological women" in its own voice in a decade, while it has published recent pieces that use the phrase "cisgender women".)

2. A woman might be cisgender, and pre-menopausal, and endosex, and still unable to give birth! As the female infertility article discusses, there are many reasons why a woman might be infertile.

WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

For similar reasons, I strongly support typically over biological. I'm not sure either wording is perfect, but I don't have any better ideas lying around at the moment. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

This makes senseI apologise for my prior edits which I now know were not entirely accuratebut I assure you were in good faith.

PS: Do you know the reasoning for the terminology change in recent years?Transcendent Presence (talk) 02:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)