Talk:Doing gender

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fahmida94.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 October 2021 and 15 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Burreaux5.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Notability: Walled garden?
So far the 12 references are all articles published in one journal, Gender & Society. A notable scientific article should have influenced a field in a larger way than by gaining the notice of the authors, editors, and readers of one lone journal, even though the journal appears to be a proper scholarly journal with peer reviewed articles. When a series of articles are based on one source, it causes some concern about a "walled garden". Unless other reliable sources (other journals, textbooks in sociology, books from academic presses and respected publishers) show significant coverage of this journal article, it should be deleted or merged with Gender role. Edison (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added a 'Further reading' section with articles in sociology, geography, linguistics, criminology, and medicine, as well as gender-related journals other than Gender & Society. I think this shows that the concept has influenced a relatively large field of social sciences. By the way, this is a small sample of the many articles I found; I do not claim that they are the best or most appropriate sources for this article, but they do seem to establish broader notability.


 * On the other hand, I'm not 100% certain that this concept is distinct from Gender performativity. The latter term is closely identified with philosopher Judith Butler, but it has had broad influence in the humanities and social sciences, probably including many of the authors currently cited on this page. Cnilep (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am also curious about the difference. I am not very familiar with these concepts, but they do appear to be distinct:


 * Cheers, Stephen (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's nice that further reading has been addded, but it absolutely does not solve the problem. Every single claim in this article that is based on a source is from one journal. There is no way that this article can discuss the issue in a broad and fair manner like this. 88.114.154.216 (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There is also a page Social construction of gender difference. Perhaps all three should be merged? 88.114.154.216 (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

This article is a classic in its field, and is cited everywhere. You can start with these 1,840 citations (at time of writing) and figure out which ones are notable enough to be included here. Mathglot (talk) 10:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Possible Citations to Improve Article
Hi! Over the next few weeks I intend to edit the current article doing gender with the goal of eliminating the concerns posted above. Below is an annotated bibliography of possible sources (some which are currently cited in the article and some new). If anyone has any insight into other appropriate sources, especially from non-sociological disciplines, they would be greatly appreciated!

'''BRUNI, A., GHERARDI, S. (2007). Omega’s story. The heterogeneous engineering of a gendered professional self. "Dent M. e Stephen W. (edit by). “Managing Professional Identities. Knowledge, Performativity and the “New” Professional”, Routeledge, Londra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.58.227.130 (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

'''Coltrane, S. (1989). Household labor and the routine production of gender. Social Problems, 36(5), 473–490. doi:10.2307/3096813''' Coltrane’s study furthers West and Zimmerman’s theory of “doing gender” (gender as accomplishment) by examining the division of household labor in families and the extent to which child care is essentialized as a “womanly” attribute in families where parents share child care responsibilities and in those where the female parent takes on the responsibility of child care.

'''Jurik, N. C., & Siemsen, C. (2009). “Doing gender” as canon or agenda: A symposium on West and Zimmerman. Gender and Society, 23(1), 72–75. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20676750''' In 2009, Gender and Society published “A Symposium on West and Zimmerman’s “Doing Gender”, asking scholars to offer critiques of West and Zimmerman’s work. In the current article doing gender, six of the citations provided come from this issue of Gender and Society. I propose using Jurik and Siemsen’s article to discuss legitimate criticism about “doing gender” in an effort to maintain neutrality, while at the same time avoiding the “walled garden” that currently exists on this page.

'''Romaine, S. (1999). Communicating gender. Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates.''' Romaine’s research focuses on the ways that doing gender involves discourse and language. Also discuss the gendered, “man-made” nature of language.

'''Schilt, K., & Westbrook, L. (2009). Doing gender, doing heteronormativity: “Gender normals,” transgender people, and the social maintenance of heterosexuality. Gender & Society, 23(4), 440–464. doi:10.1177/0891243209340034'''Schilt and Westbrook use the concept of “doing gender” to examine the interactions between cisgendered and transgendered people and to establish a link between “doing gender” and heteronormativity. Specifically, Schilt and Westbrook further West and Zimmerman’s idea that, “If we fail to do gender appropriately, we as individuals-not the institutional arrangements-may be called to account (for our character, motives, and predispositions)”, by focusing on the consequences of doing gender that is inconsistent with one’s sex during sexual interactions.

'''Stanton, D. C., & Stewart, A. J. (1995). Feminisms in the Academy. University of Michigan Press.'''Many of the criticisms about the current article doing gender refer to the lack of sources from other fields of study. Stanton and Stewart provide insight into how doing gender is both important and counterintuitive to the discipline of psychology. Stanton and Stewart describe research methods that may further the psychological study of doing gender.

'''West, C., & Fenstermaker, S. (1995). Doing difference. Gender and Society, 9(1), 8–37. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/189596''' West and Fenstermaker elaborate on West and Zimmerman’s concept of doing gender as a way to maintain the hierarchical structure of sex/gender by demonstrating that the concepts of race and class also maintain societal hierarchies and work in conjunction with gender to maintain social inequalities.

'''West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1(2), 125–151. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/189945''' Using an ethnomethodological approach, West and Zimmerman further the study of gender as a social construct by developing the concept of gender as a lifelong accomplishment, achieved through daily social interactions. West and Zimmerman argue that “doing gender” serves to legitimize and maintain heteronormative gender roles by falsely essentializing them. West and Zimmerman focus on Goffman’s ideas of gender roles and gender display, and particularly take issue with his assertion of gender display as optional. West and Zimmerman also posit that although individuals have agency when it comes to displaying gender, they will still be perceived by others as either male or female. Using the case study of Agnes, a transsexual raised as a boy until the age of 17, from Harold Garfinkel’s “Studies in Ethnomethodology”, West and Zimmerman demonstrate the difference between sex, sex category, and gender.

'''West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (2009). Accounting for doing gender. Gender and Society, 23(1), 112–122. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20676758''' In “Accounting for Doing Gender, West and Zimmerman respond to critiques of their seminal work, “Doing Gender”. Specifically, West and Zimmerman elaborate on methods that will allow for the further study of “doing gender”. Ghalmars (talk) 06:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Partial merge proposal
There's been a Merge proposal banner on this article since 2012 suggesting a merge with Social construction of gender difference and Gender performativity. There was some action on the other two articles, but this one was left out of it. I believe I understand the reason for the original Merge proposal, as well as how to resolve it by doing a partial merge instead. The basis for my Partial merge proposal, rests on the fact that a single academic journal article, namely the 1987 Doing Gender by West & Zimmerman, is very highly notable and deserves its own Wikipedia article.

This leads to the following three-part proposal, which I think will resolve the existing confusion among the three Wikipedia articles:


 * 1) refocus this article away from the general concept and towards the eponymous journal article by West & Zimmerman published in 1987 in the journal Gender & Society
 * 2) partial merge, that is, a move of any content in Doing gender that is not closely related to the 1987 W&Z article to one of the two articles Gender performativity, or Social construction of gender difference.
 * 3)  Italicization and capitalization of the title of this article to Doing Gender, demonstrating the new focus.  Note that this involves a Move for capitalization.

This proposal does not address the scope boundaries between the other two articles or how to resolve them. The hope is that this proposal simplifies a 3-way problem into a 2-way one by solving one sub-problem first, thus (hopefully) making the bilateral one easier to solve.

Currently, there is, in fact, a large overlap between this article and Social construction of gender difference and Gender performativity and it's hard to know what belongs where because of the uncertain scope, chiefly of this article. Refocusing this one to the W&Z article, simplifies that problem by distributing the overlap here to the other two articles.

To justify this, it's necessary to understand the impact and influence of the W&Z article. Candace West and Don Zimmerman published their article Doing Gender in 1987. It's hard to overstate the impact that this article has had. Since publication, it has been cited innumerable times, and has been highly influential in the topic of gender as performance. The titles of other articles and books are hat tips or extensions of the name (Doing Gender Diversity; Undoing Gender; Doing gender, doing surgery: Women surgeons in a man's profession; etc.). It's so central to the field, it deserves a Wikipedia article for itself, being both highly notable and referenced innumerable times in reliable sources.

The West & Zimmerman article is well-represented in the WP article, which is obviously named after it. The WP article, and version one was already a pretty good description of the W&Z article, along with analysis and some criticism of it. But it did have some extraneous material, and over time, that just got worse as other editors added a lot of additional material that either duplicates content in, or more properly belongs in Social construction of gender difference or Gender performativity as it does not directly deal with the West & Zimmerman article. Since creation, the article has grown to 21,877 bytes.

I would be happy to participate in the effort by recasting the lead paragraph to set the focus, and to continue the effort of partitioning out parts of it to the other two, but I'd like to hear more opinions first, if possible. For the time being, I've added an Unfocused banner, which hopefully will be considered uncontroversial. Mathglot (talk) 04:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Me again, this time coming from the future. I agree with everything and made a slightly edited version for this purpose, it's in User:Gmsrubin/sandbox. If it's what you guys had in mind, I'll bring it here and then all that'll be left is WP:MOVE. Gmsrubin (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

References for Partial merge proposal


 * Agree with proposal and would be happy to help with the restructuring. I've very familiar with the academic article in question and agree with the assertion of notability. It's been the subject of its own symposium in Gender & Society and is covered in every intro to sociology text.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the consensus for improvement rather than a merge, I've removed the merge tags. Feel free to improve/refocus as discussed above! I don't have the expertise to do so. Klbrain (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this is technically kind of problematic because this was voted on in the earlier vote and there all 5 participants voted for merger, so here you are essentially perverting the course of democracy... even though the solution might be good in itself88.195.243.29 (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Contradictory statements / unclear
Ok. I am not a expert in gender studies. However, this statement seems to me to be saying that "gender" is behavior:

"gender is the degree to which an actor is masculine or feminine, in light of societal expectations about what is appropriate for one's sex category"

But the beginning paragraph says:

"In sociology and gender studies, "doing gender" is the idea that in Western culture, gender, rather than being an innate quality of individuals, is a psychologically ingrained social construct that actively surfaces in everyday human interaction"

So, in other words, the behavior that can either meet expectations or not is caused not by "innate" things because it is a social construct? That just simply does not follow. These statements cannot both be true.

So, does this mean that there is a common tendency in sociology to believe this? If so, is there some kind of source that can be used to verify this, like a text book for university? Or is the wording somehow off in this article?88.195.243.29 (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeed. You've spotted one of the problems that was raised in the previous section.  The sentence as quoted has no business being in the article in that form, and your "in other words" points out the problem with it.  Either the sentence should simply be scrapped in a re-org, or rewritten to correspond to what West & Zimmerman's article discusses. Mathglot (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Good catch. West and Zimmerman do not view gender as ingrained. They are solidly social constructionists and define gender as "a routine, methodical, and recurring accomplishment... gender involves a complex of socially guided perceptual, interactional, and micropolitical activities that cast particular pursuits as expressions of masculine and feminine 'natures'" (p. 126). In that same page they say that people are held hostage to these expectations. I suggest changing the sentence to "In sociology and gender studies, "doing gender" is the idea that in Western culture, gender, rather than being an innate quality of individuals, is a social construct that actively and repeatedly surfaces in everyday human interaction." We might want to add a line about how gender is upheld through this repeated demand for its production in interactions.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Maintenance tags removed
I removed a number of maintenance tags left over from 2012, that no longer hold up: Refimprove, POV check, citation style and Notability; justification available at their respective edit summaries. But really, it's the person placing a maintenance tag that needs to justify them, either with the  param, or here on the Talk page, or both.

I've left in the Essay-like tag for now which dates from May 2016; however it, too, lacks justification, and if none is forthcoming within a reasonable interval, it should be removed as well. Mathglot (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Should this be merged with social construction of gender perhaps? Crossroads -talk- 04:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , kind of; see above.  I'm still in favor of refocusing the article to covering the 1987 journal article and its impact. (That would require a minor article move to capitalize both words.) Anything not about that topic, should be moved out, and perhaps merged as you say, or to Social construction of gender . (Gender performativity was merged to the latter after the date of that section.) Mathglot (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)