Talk:Gender/Archive 11

Biopsychosocial
I made a bold edit to the lede here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gender&oldid=1142732257

Gender can be thought of as a biopsychosocial construct, especially by more scholars and sources recently. If the edit stands, here are some sources that could be added to support the definition:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Gender_Trauma/ySnqDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=9781787751071&pg=PA67&printsec=frontcover

https://www.academia.edu/en/58598916/Integrative_Problem_Centered_Metaframeworks_Therapy_I_Core_Concepts_and_Hypothesizing

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24309556_Introduction_to_the_Special_Section-Gendered_Power_in_Cultural_Contexts_Capturing_the_Lived_Experience_of_Couples Born25121642 (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Edit: Here is another source, which appears to be a very good source:
 * https://transreads.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2019-04-11_5caf4e9054c15_390340273-How-to-Understand-Your-Gender-a-Practical-Guide-for-Exploring-Who-You-Are.pdf Born25121642 (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I reverted this edit; however, there could be a good place to put this word elsewhere in the lead or article. However, the existing first sentence seems to explain it well without it; I don't think it necessarily adds clarity there. Crossroads -talk- 02:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking about MOS:FIRST. To start off with "Gender is..." vs. "Gender includes...". I believe that a clearer definition at the start of the article could be good.
 * How about something like this:
 * Gender is a biopsychosocial construct that includes aspects of being a man, woman, or other gender identity. Born25121642 (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I encourage review of the extensive Talk discussions above that helped develop the broader first sentence, including the sources that were discussed in support of a broader introduction of the concept. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I did read over all of the discussions. Replying to Crossroads: In the mean time I have added the content about gender being biopsychosocial to the end of part of the lede. Born25121642 (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My rationale is that gender is not just a social construct. There are social elements, and its good to name them. I believe that greater clarity will benefit readers, even if biopsychosocial is a big word.
 * One source that I didn't see in the discussions above is Alex Iantaffi and Meg-John Barker's How to Understand Your Gender, which was illuminating to me in understanding this. Born25121642 (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * With the lead, we try to summarize the content of the article, per the MOS:LEAD guideline and WP:NPOV policy ("which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic"), and I agree with Crossroads that a section about the biopsychosocial perspective may be appropriate to include in the article (and then proportionately included in the lead). Please let us know if you have questions. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal - from Gender identity
Much of the content between Gender and Gender Identity is largely the same. I believe the two pages can be tactfully merged and it would be positive, so that editors don't have to double check between the two pages (EDIT: Before making edits), and readers have a better experience. Born25121642 (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Gender is the larger concept article, and gender identity is a component. The concepts and article contents are very different. Per WP:NOMERGE, this merger of discrete subjects does not appear to benefit readers and would create a long and unwieldy article. Beccaynr (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article, Gender, already has a "readable prose size" of 9,954 words (63 kB). As per WP:SIZERULE, being over 9,000 words and 60kB, this article "Probably should be divided ..." as it stands, before making any additions. Gender identity has a "readable prose size" of 5,430 words (35 kB), so if they were combined, even allowing for some omission of duplicated material, there would be further pressure for this page to be divided. What would it be divided into? - An obvious split would be into Gender and Gender identity, so we would be back where we started, after a lot of unnecessary work. - Arjayay (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It makes sense to have two separate but related articles for two separate but related subjects when each subject merits a substantial article, as these both do. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, these are distinct topics - the nature of the overlap is not enough to justify attempting to merge large articles together. And per above. Crossroads -talk- 19:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree with everyone else who opposes. Masterhatch (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Gender identity is not the same as gender. It is merely a component of it and it would be scientifically wrong to merge these two pages that explain two different subjects… 76.65.140.121 (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like there is basically unanimous opposition.
 * Born25121642 (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies-17
— Assignment last updated by LuciBee123 (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Decisiveness of the leading line
The leading line gives a rather broad description of gender, but still relatively decisive. As is clearly indicated by the entire article, it is not too agreed upon how gender should be defined, besides a few overlaps. I think this is the key concept that should be incorporated within the description.

The most problematic phrase is 'or other gender identity.'
 * 1) Neither of the two sources mention this, although I assume it is instead just summarising parts of the page, so not a massive point.
 * 2) The leading line on the 'gender identity' page is "Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender." Incorporating that definition gives: "gender includes the ... aspects of man, woman, and other personal senses of one's own gender," which is circular and not particularly helpful.
 * 3) Is not neutral. Given gender is not widely agreed upon. Points of contention should be highlighted. E.g., not everyone agrees that there is more than two genders.

There are several other problems:
 * 1) 'Man' and 'woman' are not the best choice of terms. Usually refering to 'adult male', but really 'male' is the more precise term. This is discussed in the first source.
 * 2) The category/label and concept of gender is used interchangeably and sometimes ambiguously. I think it should clearly say that it's talking about the concept.
 * 3) Discussion of non-binary/gender binary. There just isn't enough material on the page on this topic to justify this being a large part of the lead.

I'm not a particularly good writer, but this can outline atleast some changes that could be made, even if written in a better fashion:
 * The concept of gender refers to the social, cultural, psychological, and behavioural aspects of being male or female; although may include other groups (i.e. non-binary), or other aspects (i.e. biological). It is a relatively recent invention in human history, with its recent growth in usage commonly attributed to the influence of feminism.

I think from here, it should be discussed on what the different usages of gender is. Gender binary should be a short sentence about how in some societies there are other genders, and the term non-binary is used to include these genders. It's a bit late for me write now, so I can't write up a suggestion on how to write that. Vituluss (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Lack of transgender
This article has a sidebar claiming that it belongs as "part of a series on Transgender topics", but the concept is never properly addressed, only mentioned in passing deep within. Is this not a glaring omission?

In comparison, 'Non-binary gender' is linked and explained in the opening paragraph; the 'Nationality' article addresses changes of nationality and how nationality is assigned in its second paragraph, not that that is perfectly analogous. PurpleQuaver (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Number of genders in the lead - missing
While I expect the exact number is a matter of dispute, it would be good to address this in the lead somehow. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * It can't go in the lead unless it is already in the body and I'm not seeing it there. Also, it isn't even a meaningful thing to try to include because most conceptions of gender (other than those that insist on their being only two) do not see it as an enumerable set of discrete entities. If you ever see three people arguing about whether there are 2, 5 or 17 genders then you can safely ignore all of them as they are all making the same mistake. That said, I don't think that you ever will because I have never seen anybody seriously trying to count all the genders. (Although I have seen people doing that as a joke or as a way to be annoying.) The lead is currently doing a good job by saying "man, woman, or other gender identity". This correctly tells the reader that there are two extremely popular named gender identities, which they are presumably already familiar with, and also a range of others. I'm not seeing how we could improve on that. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Past discussions of lead
fyi: Talk:Gender/Archive 9 and Talk:Gender/Archive 10 include extensive discussion that helped form the compromise to develop the current lead: Beccaynr (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Culture
— Assignment last updated by Jenjmo (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant image; suggesting deletion or alteration
File:SF gender symbols.png#globalusage

This image, used under the Social Categories heading, is irrelevant. The Male / Female / Transgender symbols in the first column are widely used, however the remaining symbols in the second and third column are "Made up symbols for gender / sex in SF articles", in the words of the image's creator.

These made-up symbols are not adding anything of value to the page, and are only confusing/misleading.

Proposed solutions:

a) delete the image entirely

b) crop the image so only the Male / Female / Transgender symbols are present

c) replace the image with a different chart (perhaps something like this https://img.freepik.com/free-vector/gender-symbols-set-outline-black-signs-isolated-white-background-simple-illustration_171739-336.jpg?size=626&ext=jpg )

d) replace the image with a collection of pride flags that represent various genders (i.e. transgender, demiboy, demigirl, non-binary, agender, etc)

I think (a) or (b) or (d) are most suitable.

(c) has the issue where gender symbols (in my lived experience as a trans person) do not have common community agreement and are not frequently used.

(d) is a better solution, since the flags have community support and are well-understood icons.

(a) is simple and easy solution. Creature-of-cozy (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I think you are right that there is something off here. Not that there is anything intrinsically wrong with the image itself, but that it is confusing in this context. It is slightly different versions of the same four symbols in three variants but a reader might not realise that. Your option C has a mix of gender and sexuality symbols and so that would be confusing as well. Option D, pride flags, is not so good as not all genders have pride flags (and we don't want to encourage trolls to add their dimwitted monochrome cis or straight flags). So that leaves A and B. Just removing it would definitely be a valid option but something like B would be better. Even better still, I think we already have the image we need on the Gender symbol article which we can reuse.
 * I am going to swap that one in, because I think that is clearly a step in the right direction, but that doesn't have to be the last word on this. If anybody has any further ideas then please say. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, that wasn't as easy as I had hoped. The image wasn't an image at all. It was symbols in an infobox. I have transplanted it as best I can. Maybe it shouldn't be an infobox? If so, does anybody know how to changeit into something more appropriate while keeping the contents as they are? --DanielRigal (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)