Talk:Gender essentialism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Samccarter.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Article has passage describing gender essentialism in relation to women
This was addressed earlier, but it is still here. I believe that gender essentialism applies equally to men and to women. But the article still contains this: "gender essentialism is the attribution of a fixed essence to women." I do not believe that this is the basic understanding of gender essentialism. Who wants to change it? 16:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

"women and men" vs "men and women"
I'm coming at this from the belief that "men and women" is the more common way of say it, and therefore any deviation from that should be justified. It seems to me that, in this case, writing it as "women and men" implies that women are different from men, rather than the two different from each other. Wasn't expecting this to be a contentious edit, and happy to leave it as it was if you don't agree. Thanks. BariNeon (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Since second-wave feminism, I don't think "men and women" is normative any longer, and I assumed the stable version of the article was reflecting contemporary usage. Thus my revert and direction to the Talk page. :) Newimpartial (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Potential issues with article
This essay feels like something some activist who create to push a narrative.CycoMa (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Please reread WP:TALK about the purpose of a Talk page. If you have nothing to say about how to improve the article, then please just don't say it. New users might get a pass the first couple of times, but you've been around long enough to know better. Mathglot (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry what I mean is that I think we should go through this essay and fix it up a bit. I’m just saying there are some areas in here that clearly need fixing.CycoMa (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry typo in phone. I’ll come back to this.CycoMa (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:SOFIXIT. Mathglot (talk) 04:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Honestly the reason I’m commenting because I don’t know much about gender studies, I’m just afraid I might cause some conflict.CycoMa (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to mention their have been a few admins having their eyes on me and my edits recently. One even blocked for 24 hours and stated there may be a topic ban for me in the future. So I’m in a situation where I should try collaborating more and not be disruptive.CycoMa (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

To anyone new to discussion, me calling it an essay is a typo.CycoMa (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Also sorry for the first comment, I must admit I should have probably explained myself.CycoMa (talk) 04:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Article has issues
Sorry about that last discussion I probably didn’t explain probably what I mean. When I read this essay it feels like it’s only thinking about the topic from a certain point of view like it’s the only point of view on the topic.

There could be a chance this article is relying a lot on partisan sources. Not to mention there are sources here that don’t probably cite their page numbers.CycoMa (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Citing page numbers isn't a WP:NPOV issue. It's a helpful, but ultimately optional trick to enhance WP:V. I'm not sure why you keep calling this article an essay, but if you think that there are other WP:DUE viewpoints that aren't being represented here, feel free to name them... --Equivamp - talk 01:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * me calling it an essay was a typo. I’m current on phone and can’t change the comment.
 * Also I don’t say not citing page numbers went against NPOV.CycoMa (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, okay, but that response still doesn't tell other editors how you think the article can be improved. Are there specific sources or passages that jump out at you as particularly non-neutral? Are there specific sources or types of sources you feel the article is remiss without? --Equivamp - talk 02:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I changed the name of this section to issues instead. Here are a view issues with this article. Like this sentence.
 * In Western civilization, it is suggested in writings going back to ancient Greece.[4]:1 With the advent of Christianity, the earlier Greek model was expressed in theological discussions as the doctrine that there are two distinct sexes, male and female created by God, and that individuals are immutably one or the other.[5] This view remained essentially unchanged until the middle of the 19th century.
 * I’m pretty sure this concept isn’t exclusive to the west.


 * Also this sentence. In this theory, there are certain universal, innate, biologically or psychologically based features of gender that are at the root of observed differences in the behavior of men and women. this sentence is confusing.CycoMa (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion to remove mischaracterization of Gender essentialism in section "Social construction of gender"
The characterization of Gender essentialism as including (all) differences as being innate is such an obvious strawman statement that I wonder why it was put in in the first place. But my first attempt to make it more nuanced was reverted so now I suggests to remove the phrase "In contrast to gender essentialism, which views differences between men and women as innate, universal, and immutable," completely. As it is not even in line with the top of the article. What do you think? --Thorseth (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: WGS 300w Feminist Theories
— Assignment last updated by Yui0712Char (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Positions should be sourced from their proponents, not opponents
It is always best to present a position through it's proponents, not by summarizing what the opponents say. For example, in describing the political position of the government of Ukraine, it is better to cite Volodymyr Zelensky's statements than Vladimir Putin's statements. The section on "Masculinity" is based only on statements by Bem, one of its strong opponents. This is not an appropriate source. I am inserting "citation needed". I hope somebody finds appropriate sources. Pete unseth (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it would easily be problematic and OR-y to try to pick out certain "proponents of gender essentialism" to cite here. Like with anything on Wikipedia, we should go with the balance of the reliable sources on the topic. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There seems to be nothing "problematic" or OR in finding sources to support the critics of gender essentialism. So why is it not "problematic" to find sources that take an opposing view? For ANY topic, it is always best to present a position through it's proponents, not by summarizing what the opponents say. The same problem appears in the next paragraph about "Normal gender", where Witting seems to be the basis for defining and attacking the position.Pete unseth (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * So then, go and find some of these seminal gender-essentialist sources and summarize them! I suspect your result will be similar as if you tried to do that with racism, heteronormativity, or cisnormativity. In any case we should rely on secondary sources, and not on our own interpretation of the primary sources, just as one doesn't write about existentialism by reading Sartre's collected works and jotting down one's own interpretation of it. Furthermore I dare to speculate that most sources that examine gender essentialism critically also take a critical stance towards it in the other sense of the word. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My point has nothing to do with primary, secondary, or tertiary sources. Rather, that in any serious discussion, a position is best understood by reading sources that present it. I would not explain Sartre's works only in the words of his detractors.Pete unseth (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please don't just keep repeating the same opinion over and over. Cite the Wikipedia editing guideline that says it. When you delete sourced material, the burden of proof is on you to justify it. Hist9600 (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please follow normal Wikipedia editorial process and guidelines, rather than making up new ones. The main guidelines for this type of thing are WP:RS and WP:DUE. For example, in WP:DUE, observe that, "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject". Hist9600 (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly what Wikipedia editing guideline is that based on? Hist9600 (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The Bem source is 30 years old, so WP:RS AGE is a concern. Also, it is reasonable to at least be concerned about the possibility of strawmanning in a contentious matter like this, especially if relying on one source. Crossroads -talk- 19:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In describing the political position of the government of Ukraine, it is better to cite what reliable sources say about goverment of Ukraine. In describing the political position of the government of Russia, it is better to cite what reliable sources say about goverment of Russia. Sometimes RSs say more complimentary things about one side of a conflict, but this is not what Wikipedia should fix (WP:FALSEBALANCE). Reprarina (talk) 09:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * yeah Philipbrochard (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of non-binary people and rest of the LGBTQ+ people
The lead should follow the body of the article per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, but the article should also be consistent with other articles such as non-binary people per MOS:CONSISTENT.

It is evident that gender is not binary, and gender essentialism in incomplete without that fact. &mdash; CrafterNova  [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 06:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there evidence that Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott opposed "gender essentialism"?
The article claims that "Feminist activists, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott were among some of the first to take a public stand against gender essentialist." They demanded more rights for women. I am not sure that means they stood against "gender essentialist" positions. This should be clarified or removed. Pete unseth (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Women's suffrage movement
For the section Women's suffrage movement, I don't see a clear link between the content currently in that section, and the topic of gender essentialism. Is there any link established in the sources? Or are we as readers meant to infer that there is some clear connection between the content and the article topic? Hist9600 (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , you’re absolutely right. Good content, but wrong venue. I blanked the section. Mathglot (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Biased or incomplete qualification: “While still strongly criticized by many feminist theorists” ?
Sentence near the end of the introduction seems potentially misleading due to incompleteness. Perhaps something softer like “while the philosophic position remains open to debate in feminist circles” would be better? Presently, article claims “many” disagree, citing a single source (not many), and failing to consider those feminists that do not disagree. 174.114.177.153 (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * When citing sources on Wikipedia in cases like this, we are SUPPOSED to cite one or two secondary sources for claims such as that, rather than citing a bunch of primary sources. Equivamp - talk 15:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying, I see that you’re right. That being said, having just checked the source cited, it seems that the author does not clearly support the claim that the citation is attached to.
 * The author does, in fact, criticize biological essentialism, but does not reject “biological facts” as she calls them. she says on page 3 that biological facts “have no fixed meaning independent of the way a culture interprets and uses them.”
 * While the author argues that biological considerations have often been over-emphasized and used as evidence to unjustly strengthen and justify social and cultural inequalities between men and women, she does not seem to be strongly criticizing the notion of biological differences existing or being taken to exist or even being used to construct concepts of gender in general.
 * the context of the article is that feminists strongly disagree with concepts of gender being constructed from supposed biological facts at all in the first place. The citation therefore clearly does not support that claim. 142.186.107.125 (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead section of an article is meant to summarise the content of that article, and reflect the balance of content there. Given the article itself reflects that the vast majority of feminist scholars reject gender essentialism, with only a few exceptions, the lead section saying "there remains debate within feminist theorists, on the issue of essentialism" suggests false balance. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems closer to what the sources suggest though. Is it possible the article should better reflect the edit in the lead, and the content of the sources? 2605:B100:D3D:9A14:7162:626B:60AA:CB9C (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really. That's doing things backwards; you're meant to write an article and then write a lead that summarises it. Indeed, leads generally have very few sources actually in them; I only added these sources because of your edits to the lead.
 * I'd also note that the current version does not reflect the sources anyway, and would exhibit false balance regardless of the content of the article. The sources describe "feminists' widespread rejection of essentialism" and say that "essentialism is widely rejected by feminist theorists". Yes there is some debate (as there is about almost everything), but just saying "there remains debate" without noting that the overwhelming majority of theorists are firmly on one side of that debate is a textbook false balance problem. The wording should reflect the sources, and the sources say "widespread rejection" not "there remains debate". AntiDionysius (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s fair, thank you for the well-reasoned explanation 142.186.107.125 (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Why not state what essentialism proponents say instead of strawmanning it
There is a blog article on wordpress titled sex, gender, and science by blogger Dave Miller that came out recently. I think it would make sense to base some of this article over showing what their side says (the essentialists) rather than strawmanning it. may as well go right from the source.

https://genderandscience8.wordpress.com/2024/04/09/sex-gender-and-science/ Philipbrochard (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * A random blog is not a reliable source for a Wikipedia article. Hist9600 (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, please note that a blog is still not a reliable source even the third time you add it after other editors have explained it's not a reliable source. Please note that continuing to add content in such a manner comes across as edit warring, which is frowned upon (and may result in a block). &#45;sche (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

"Scientific sexism" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_sexism&redirect=no Scientific sexism] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)