Talk:Sex–gender distinction/Archive 6

Money, GI/R
What's the problem? Supporting sources are in the article? Tewdar (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh come on! You changed a lot of stuff there! "In 1945" > "a decade earlier", really? Tewdar (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * You make a bunch of overlapping edits to the same paragraph, and then complain when someone reverts to the stable version? You're lucky I didn't revert the whole article based on your changes to that paragraph.
 * If you have a source that Money introduced the social science usage of "gender" tout court you should present that here. I have seen you make too many mistakes concerning that figure in the past - this is not how this article or gender describe his work, nor to my knowledge is it how he describes it himself. Newimpartial (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * "terminological" > fine, who cares


 * distinction between biological sex and gender > well, "gender identity/role" is fine, but since we already say gender can refer to either, I don't see why this is a problem. This GI/R claim has two sources, BTW


 * "already in 1945" - now you're having a laff


 * "Money says gender an additional variable of sex" - also referenced (twice?)


 * "Stoller splits sex and gender" - Where's EvergreenTree? Also sourced!


 * "virtuall unknown" > "only regularly" this is correct. Tewdar (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * "Money introduced the social science usage of "gender" - there are two sources! Did you read Fuckology? If you're not happy with "gender", how about GI/R? Tewdar (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * And why remove Stoller from the lead? He really needs to be there... Tewdar (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Look, how about "Sexologist John Money is often regarded as the first to introduce a distinction between sex and gender identity/role in 1955,[14][15] although Madison Bentley had already defined gender as the "socialized obverse of sex" a decade earlier.[16][17] As originally conceived by Money, gender is simply seen as an additional variable of sex, but later work by Robert Stoller separated the two concepts, designating sex and gender as biological and cultural categories, respectively. Before this time, the word gender was only regularly used to refer to grammatical categories."


 * If the only thing you are unhappy about is that bit... Tewdar (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * It is necessary to say "gender identity/role", or at least "gender role", because that is what Money actually did. There are plenty of other senses of gender, before or since, which he did not help to define or distinguish.
 * And the "additional variable" language, the way you introduced it, muddled the section rather than clarifying it IMO. I have no problem with adding Stoller to the lead section, but the text needs to make sense. Yours did not, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is As originally conceived by Money, gender is simply seen as an additional variable of sex, but later work by Robert Stoller separated the two concepts, designating sex and gender as biological and cultural categories, respectively that makes no sense to me. It is as though variables, concepts and categories were floating in some primordial intellectual stew. Newimpartial (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * "additional variable" is used in the article, and sourced (Jemima (2016). The biopolitics of gender. Oxford. p. 49) . Are you happy with the modified version above, or are there further modifications you wish to propose? Tewdar (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, how about "As originally conceived by Money, gender is simply seen as an additional variable of sex, but later work by Robert Stoller separated the two, designating sex and gender as biological and cultural categories, respectively" - how about that? For Money, gender is one of the components of sex. For Stoller, they are separate. Happy? Tewdar (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Exact wording from source (The biopolitics of gender): "The legacy of Stoller's contribution is twofold. First, where for Money gender was a new variable of sex, Stoller split gender from sex, designating sex as a biological category and gender as a specifically cultural one." Tewdar (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We could say, "gender is simply seen as an subcategory of sex", perhaps. Tewdar (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Additional variable of sex" is garbage language (in the context of this article). Grabbing dated (and non-RS) terminology and trying to insert it into the lead section here is just not going to work. Where it took you - introducing variables, concepts and categories into the same paragraph without any clear relationships among them - is just not helpful to anyone. Also, each of your proposed versions here has obscured, rather than clarifying, what Money meant to capture as "gender". Newimpartial (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Please, clarify for us how Money viewed the relationship of sex to GI/R, and Stoller's revised assessment of this relationship, so that we can add this important history to the article. Tewdar (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Right, I put the bits back that you don't seem to mind. If you can think of a better summary than my meagre abilities could provide, feel free to add it. Good night. 😁 Tewdar (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

"I object to the changes to the 3c3 hete" - teh wut? Tewdar (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

More accurate, but it's still terrible writing. Newimpartial (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why exactly do you object? The references are duplicated further down, in the article body, where they should be. Tewdar (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see the dummy edit summary that followed. The interface sometimes doesn't let me edit edit summaries. Newimpartial (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I know you object to "the changes to the text"! What in particular didn't you like about it?! Look, if you think that bit (which I originally added, BTW) should be in the lede, then fine, leave it there. I thought it was a bit too much detail, is all. Tewdar (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My suspicion is that you are better at detail than you are at summary. Newimpartial (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * LOL. Anyway, "virtually unknown apart from" is not as accurate as "only regularly used", as you will see from the OED ref and the others... Tewdar (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact, I believe there is a source that uses that exact wording. Tewdar (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But, is your objection that we need to mention that gender is used as a synonym for sex? Tewdar (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I am fine with "only regularly used". But you have not at all captured my concerns about gender and sex. The existing text fudges some issues helpfully, which isn't true of some of your proposals. Newimpartial (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, can you change "Before this, it was virtually unknown to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories..." to "Before this, the word gender was only regularly used to refer to grammatical categories"? I'm not sure if I might be breaking the rules if I do it. Apart from this, all I'm really bothered about, is including something like: "Money: gender a subcategory of sex", Stoller: separate, sex=biology, gender=culture" before the above sentence. Care to suggest something? Tewdar (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Is that last thing really what you were trying to say in previous versions? If so, it implies that for early Money, "sex" was an overarching category including both biological and social elements (which gets us back to de Beauvioir, tbh). But do we have a source actually staying this? Because the "variable of" or "subcategory of" language won't work without this broader context. Newimpartial (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I gave you the exact wording from the source above! Starts with, "The legacy of Stoller's contribution is twofold..." So, "for 1955 Money, "sex" was an overarching category including both biological and social elements, whereas for Stoller, separate categories, sex=biological, gender =cultural" Goodnufffuree, izzuh? Tewdar (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it was a sketch really. Did the equals signs not get that across sufficiently? Tewdar (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There's tons of sources that'll say almost exactly the same thing, though. I'll give more sources tomorrow if you like... Tewdar (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I take it you will not be changing "virtually unknown" to "regularly used" this evening? I'm not changing it, some overzealous person reported another discussion I was involved in to AN/I on trumped up charges a few days ago, so I'm not violating 3RR,"consensus" or not... Tewdar (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I am feeling WP:NODEADLINE, in this instance. Newimpartial (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Hence, Money’s coining of the term “gender”—or, more precisely, gender identity/role (G-I/R)—to refer to the multivariate character of the “totality of masculinity/femininity, genital sex included"
 * Random quotes from "Fuckology":

Money writes, “used strictly and correctly, gender is more inclusive than sex. It is an umbrella under which are sheltered all the different components of sex difference, including the sex-genital, sex-erotic, and sex-procreative components”

One might claim that Money’s work had an indirect influence inasmuch as it informed Robert Stoller’s work on sex and gender, and this was taken up directly by some second-wave feminists. However, Stoller, unlike Money, makes a distinction between sex and gender.

Money then borrowed “gender identity” back from Stoller, while also frequently critiquing the separation Stoller had made between role and identity.


 * So, Money's "gender role"=GI/R, (according to Money and the Fuckology authors), Money's "gender role" includes Stoller's term "gender identity" (which shouldn't be separated, according to Money), Money doesn't distinguish sex and gender, and "gender" (not sex) for Money was an "overarching category" including "biological and social" elements. Since gender role, gender identity, and biological differences are all apparently different sides of the same coin for Money, I suppose it doesn't really matter very much whether we subsume gender into sex, or sex into gender. I would quote Money himself, but I was told not to do that by EvergreenFir. Speaking of whom, where are they? It would be nice to get some expert input here. Tewdar (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, we notice that the authors seem very happy to state that Money coined the term "gender", to mean the “totality of masculinity/femininity, genital sex included", which they then explain with greater precision, because they are writing a scholarly book, rather than a Wikipedia lede. But I don't really care whether we write gender or GI/R here. What I do care about, is putting Stoller here, and briefly noting how his analysis differs from Money's. Tewdar (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * So, I'm now proposing: "Sexologist John Money is often regarded as the first to introduce a distinction between sex and gender identity/role in 1955,[14][15] although Madison Bentley had already defined gender as the "socialized obverse of sex" a decade earlier.[16][17] As originally conceived by Money, gender and sex are both analysed as a single category including both biological and social elements, but later work by Robert Stoller separated the two, designating sex and gender as biological and cultural categories, respectively. Before this time, the word gender was only regularly used to refer to grammatical categories."
 * Or, as an alternative:"Sexologist John Money is often regarded as the first to introduce a distinction between sex and "gender role" in 1955,[14][15] although Madison Bentley had already defined gender as the "socialized obverse of sex" a decade earlier.[16][17] As originally conceived by Money, "gender role" constitutes one of seven "variables of sex".[reference available for this] Later work by Robert Stoller built on Money's original formulation, distinguishing "gender role" from "gender identity", and designating sex and gender as biological and cultural categories, respectively.[reference available for this] Prior to this, most other uses of the word gender had become obsolete, and it was only regularly used to refer to grammatical categories.[references already in article body, but we can put them here too if you like]"
 * If you believe this is somehow incorrect, or you think you can do better, please suggest an alternative formulation. Tewdar (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, please can you clarify what you mean by "Grabbing dated (and non-RS) terminology and trying to insert it into the lead section", I'm not sure what you're referring to. If you mean "The biopolitics of gender", it is 2015 and I don't think you can say it isn't RS. Tewdar (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless you mean Money and his 7 original variables are dated and unreliable. In which case I agree. Money is not reliable at all. Tewdar (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do I have the sense that there is some sort of 'hidden objection' here that is not being explicitly stated? Tewdar (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know. My point is what I (sometimes implicitly) stated above: we have to deal with the limitations of the formulations of Money and the secondary sources without introducing nonsense by juxtaposing inconsistently-used terms, but also without introducing OR "improvements to" - or critiques of - Money's formulations. To navigate this, I think the drive to explicate things more and more precisely can be a cause of rather than a resolution to problems. (The 2015 source, in my view, refers to Money and Stoller on terminology in a particularly counterproductive way.)
 * Of your two versions, I probably prefer the first but with "both analysed as" replaced by "analysed together as". Your second, alternative version introduces the concept "became obsolete", which introduces confusion and would require RS support, at a minimum. Newimpartial (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "analysed together as" - sold!
 * "became obsolete" - this is the language used in the body of the article, and is already RSed. Take a look if you like. Tewdar (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So, I think "Sexologist John Money is often regarded as the first to introduce a distinction between sex and gender identity/role in 1955,[14][15] although Madison Bentley had already defined gender as the "socialized obverse of sex" a decade earlier.[16][17] As originally conceived by Money, gender and sex are analysed together as a single category including both biological and social elements, but later work by Robert Stoller separated the two, designating sex and gender as biological and cultural categories, respectively. Prior to this, most other uses of the word gender had become obsolete, and it was only regularly used to refer to grammatical categories." is better Tewdar (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem I have is that, in your alternative draft text, "became obsolete" follows the introduction of the term by Money and Stoller. In the body text, "became obsolete" follows a discussion of usage in the distant past. The meaning is is completely different in the two cases, and "prior to this" doesn't fix it, IMO, but makes it even more confusing because it follows the introduction of Stoller (e.g., are you referring to the time between Money and Stoller?). So don't go down that road, please. Newimpartial (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * "By the first half of the 20th century, the word gender was only regularly used to refer to grammatical categories, and most other uses had become obsolete by this time" - better? Tewdar (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not really that important,though. What I really want to say is, it used to mean "kind or sort", then became mainly restricted to grammatical gender, until it was used by Money and Stoller and co. Tewdar (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Also I agree with your points above. Getting a truthful and coherent lede by gathering quotes from Money is a nightmare,and secondary sources often contradict each other. Tewdar (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * So, you are "happy" with, "Sexologist John Money is often regarded as the first to introduce a distinction between sex and gender identity/role in 1955,[14][15] although Madison Bentley had already defined gender as the "socialized obverse of sex" a decade earlier.[16][17] As originally conceived by Money, gender and sex are analysed together as a single category including both biological and social elements, but later work by Robert Stoller separated the two, designating sex and gender as biological and cultural categories, respectively. Before this time, the word gender was only regularly used to refer to grammatical categories.", then? 🤔 Tewdar (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Replace "this time" with "the work of Bentley, Money and Stoller", and I'll concede. Newimpartial (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, you can't spell "Encyclopedia" without "concede"! 😁 Tewdar (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Sex and gender distinction' refers to the claim that sex is distinct from gender.
I put this into the lead. It was reverted with an "aargh" explanation. Can someone explain succinctly why this happened. By succinct I mean not a wall of words. A nice paragraph please. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I put it back again, just to see what everyone else thinks 😂. Please refer to the huuuuuuge talk page discussion in the archives. This should be fun. Do you have any particular specialist knowledge of this subject, or are you just passing through? Tewdar (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Basically, "the A and B distinction refers to the distinction between A and B' was agreed to be not very good. Tewdar (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, statements like "the claim that sex is distinct from gender..." are probably not going to be very popular in these parts. 😂 Tewdar (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone else has already reverted you again. 😂 Tewdar (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hilarious. Can we reduce the 😂 count please? Most of the above amounts to "Folks round these parts don't reckon with your ways. You're not from around here, are you stranger?". The huuuuuuge talk page is unreadable. I was hoping for a succinct explanation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Very succinctly - your version is tautologous, violates the consensus, which I personally do not support, that "sex is distinct from gender", and also removes critical information about gender roles. Tewdar (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Very succinct and readable. Given the lack of unanimity on the consensus, I would have thought that that was a very good reason to start the lead with definitions. You seem to use the word "tautologous" as if it it was a bad thing; personally I think that it's just a way of defining terms. For an article that turns on precise splicing of terms, that seems to be a good thing, even if some would like to denigrate the logic. I was not aware that my edit had removed critical information about gender roles and am happy for that information to be restored in any re-statement of definitions (tautological or otherwise). Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * All definitions have a tinge of tautology, but it's not helpful to anyone to provide strictly, totally tautological definitions. MOS:REDUNDANT advises avoiding them. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Defining terms" - we are trying very hard *not* to do this in these parts, it seems. The fuzzier, the better!
 * "Tautologous" - "the sex and gender distinction refers to the distinction between sex and gender" hurts my eyes and brain.
 * "Article that turns on precise splicing of terms" - I'm sorry, but... 😂😂😂 Tewdar (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that "All definitions have a tinge of tautology". I think that this article needs to err more on the side of tautology and less on the side of fuzzy while avoiding total pedantry. Tewdar seems to be having a moment; I'll wait for him/her to compose him/herself. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Tewdar is a momentous person. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Tewdar probably won't be composing anything, let alone himself, any time soon, but in the meantime, perhaps, Laurel, you could provide a lede that gives us all a basic definition of both sex and gender without being too pedantic or tautological. Tewdar (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Triple-F - thanks for the compliment. It was a compliment, wasn't it? 🤔 Tewdar (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say it was a compliment taking a brief break in the shade. Laurel Lodged, I am open to the possibility of a lead rewrite. Call me jaded, but I'd say to expect another "huuuuuuge" discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally, while I'm not a huuuuuuge fan of the "is distinct" mantra, I think the current lede does a reasonable job introducing the distinction, the areas where it applies, the history of the term, and contemporary usage. What don't you like about the current version, FFF? Tewdar (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problems with the current version. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to add one blast from the past that I haven't seen re-hashed yet (and this point was not originally mine): to avoid SYNTH and OR, this article must be based primarily on reliable sources that discuss the sex and gender distinction (the topic of this article). For essentially all of these sources, the distinction exists, even if (as in some medical literature from the late 20th century) it is not consistently implemented or (as with Judith Butler) both sex and gender are understood as social constructs - they are still distinct constructs. As far as I recall, no RS have been presented at this Talk page that address the sex/gender distinction by denying that sex and gender are distinct phenomena, although they are undoubtedly interrelated and the interpretations of sex, gender and the relationships between them differ among RS. Newimpartial (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "To avoid SYNTH and OR, this article must be based primarily on reliable sources that discuss the sex and gender distinction" Oh no! Wasn't it me who said that? Ladhys gans ow kledha ow honan! Tewdar (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a good thing I acknowledged that it wasn't originally my point, then, yeah? :p Newimpartial (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I saw that, thank you. Hence, "oh no!", "slain by my own sword", "how ironic" etc etc etc. I wasn't saying you pinched my recommendations, if that's what you thought I meant. You didn't run the Kernowek through Google translate, did you?! Tewdar (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Because when I do that, it detects "Arabic" and translates it as "Lass sex or all or here" - oh dear! Tewdar (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't. I just thought you were speaking in Lallans. Newimpartial (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

No - in that case I would've said "murdurred by mah ain sword" I think. Tewdar (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought you were saying, "the blade turns out to be sharp after all", or something. :p Newimpartial (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

What jolly japes the usual crowd are having. That's just another exclusionary tactic (see "You're not from around here stranger, are you" above). To return to business: for an article that is concerned with very particular definitions of terms and the relationships between those terms, it is important that the opening words of the article define those terms (as used in the context of the topic as opposed to similar words that may have different definitions in a different context), the relationships between those terms (as used in the context of the topic) and the theory being advanced (i.e. that the terms are not synonymous but are distinct). Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Except that, per WP:ISATERMFOR, this article is about the relationship between sex and gender as phenomena, as understood in RS on the topic, and not their relationships as terms. Otherwise, we would be likely to disappear rapidly up Derrida's navel, IMO. I am also unaware of any reliable, secondary sources arguing that either these phenomena or the terms representing them are synonymous, so, per WP:NPOV, we cannot present as a claim that about which RS agree. Newimpartial (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Sex" and "gender", within the context of the "sex and gender distinction" are both defined differently by almost everybody making the distinction. About the best we have been able to manage, in a massive debate lasting what seemed to be years, was "sex is biological stuff and gender is sociological stuff". Feel free to suggest other "definitions" if you've nothing better to do. Tewdar (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, and a few editors here are opposed to even having that in the lede. Which is why it doesn't start with that... Tewdar (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

First sentences
I suggest we replace the opening sentences with the following: Sex and gender are not the same thing. Sex is the biological distinction between male and female. Gender, on the other hand, is a set of sex-based stereotypes or gender role that society imposes on the basis of sex, e.g., that girls should like pink and boys like blue, or that women are nurturing and men are aggressive. Both of these concepts are distinct from the concept of gender identity. Nero Calatrava (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC). What do you think, Newimpartial ?
 * Why would you privilege gender as role over gender as identity? Gender role and gender identity are equally distinct (and well-attested) meanings of gender, both equally distinct from sex. Newimpartial (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Newimpartial's comment above. I also think that your proposed change would be over-simplifying the topic, . Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  23:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there are good reasons for emphasising gender role as the primary meaning of gender. Firstly, since this is the sense it had when the distinction between sex and gender was first introduced. And secondly, because when sources only give one meaning of the term gender, it is gender role that they mention. Nero Calatrava (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But that is no longer true. Both in popular and scholarly discourse, gender identity is now much more frequently references than gender role (diffs available on request). Newimpartial (talk) 13:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree heavily with your second point. In your first point, I grant you that might be correct, but it is not our job to reflect terminology based on its use in the launch presentation of Gender™, but rather on its current use by RS. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  13:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The word Sex, has two definitions. Gender & intercourse. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong. Firefangledfeathers 21:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tamuriley. Peer reviewers: Tamuriley.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Annafolkestad, Amredig, Skowro27.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2021, between 25 January 2021 and 3 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EvanFG.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Cherrypicking
Newimpartial, you might have a point there. What other sources address this question? I've been unable to find any. H Remster (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe start with this more nuanced treatment. Newimpartial (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I know this paper. It's addressing a different question. H Remster (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you see as the difference between these two questions, and why do you see one as more WP:DUE for inclusion in this article than the other? Newimpartial (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The paper I cited is about how speakers of everyday English use words. The paper you cited is variously about how people should use words, or about how words are used within trans communities (a subset of speakers of everyday English). I don't say that either of these is more or less WP:DUE for inclusion in the article, but only the former is relevant to my footnote, which is intended to help the puzzled reader, who is presumed to be a speaker of everyday English. H Remster (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Newimpartial, forget it, if you hadn't already. In the cold light of day, I can see that my contribution was incongruous. The problem is with the WHO page, not the Wikipedia article. H Remster (talk) 07:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I had not yet forgotten, but I will now. :) Newimpartial (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Pew has a survey: "Americans’ Complex Views on Gender Identity and Transgender Issues". Most Americans don't think transgender people exist, or?? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Something like 40% of Americans are young earth creationists, so I wouldn't put too much stock in public opinion surveys. Newimpartial (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Splitting proposal
Current title overemphasizes the differences between sex and gender. Therefore this article is not an appropriate place for describing concepts which are related both sex or gender, such as sexism, intersex and legal gender. I think that we should split Sex or gender(Q18382802) or Human sex or gender(Q31087437) from this article. Sharouser (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the distinction is the topic. I see no logical way this could be split into multiple new articles. If there is content here that doesn't fit this topic, then it could go in whatever article is the correct one, but there's nothing to split. Crossroads -talk- 19:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Reconstructed genitalia by sex reassignment surgery is a component of human sex. Sexism, sex segregation or legal gender are aspects of human sex or gender. Therefore we should separate tr:Cinsiyet-like articles from this article. I want to create a new article Sex or gender or Human sex or gender by splitting or Content forking. Sharouser (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose – there is virtually zero chance that this article will be split. As Crossroads has already said, "the distinction is the topic". Are you familiar with the linguistic concept known as the T–V distinction? You may not know it by that name, but many languages in the world have a different word for "you" when speaking to children or friends, than they do for speaking to your boss or older people. In French, it's tu for the children, and vous for the boss; in Spanish, it's also 'tu' for the kids, but 'Usted' for the boss. (Turkish has it, too: with sen and siz, but English has no such distinction: it's you for everybody, child, boss, or President.) Many articles at Wikipedia are about concepts that draw a distinction between two opposing ideas, such as the Analytic–synthetic distinction, Idea–expression distinction, Internal–external distinction, Use–mention distinction, and others. Not one of these is going to be split up, since the central idea involved in any of these articles would disappear immediately upon splitting. The same is true with Sex and gender distinction. Mathglot (talk) 03:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sex and gender are not opposing ideas. They are subclass of Q18382802(Sex or gender). What do you think about creating a new article for Q18382802(Sex or gender) and keeping this article? Sharouser (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Why niece and nephew article can be created in English Wikipedia but sex or gender cannot be created even if both topics are concepts which are semantic gaps in English language? Sharouser (talk) 06:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Sex or gender" isn't a meaningful topic, in English anyway. The consensus of reliable sources is that sex and gender are distinct, and that distinction is our topic here. If there exist noteworthy views that they are the same or are interchangeable, that would belong here, lest we create a WP:POV fork. We already note the fact that commonly the terms are used interchangeably. I can't speak for what the editors at niece and nephew decided to do, but it looks like there wasn't material for two separate articles, so they're combined, and a quirk of English is that there is no genderless equivalent of "sibling" for that relation. Crossroads -talk- 04:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * At least not until nibling goes mainstream... Funcrunch (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Notability is a fundamental policy of Wikipedia. Per WP:GNG, a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The single concept(Q18382802) which encompass sex or gender has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Furthermore, sex or gender based distinguishments such as sex or gender discrimination, segregation or legal sex or gender have received significant coverage in reliable English language sources. Therefore we can create an article for Q18382802 even if there are no single words in English language for Q18382802. Sharouser (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any policy suggesting that we need to follow the way Wikidata does things. They are very different projects. Crossroads -talk- 05:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - As others have said, the distinction is the topic here. I don't agree that your cited WP policies justify splitting this article. Funcrunch (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: the difference between the two words is the current scope of this article. The title does not imply that sex and gender are "opposing ideas", but that they are two words with different meanings. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * But there is a proposed word which encompass sex or gender in English. The term "gender/sex" has been proposed, to emphasise the inseparability of biological, sociological, and cultural factors. Therefore Q18382802 is a meaningful topic in English Wikipedia. Sharouser (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * wikt:gendersex is also used in gender studies articles. Sharouser (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Gendersex" is not used in any Wikipedia article - I searched. Wiktionary has different inclusion standards. And the two sources you cited hold a minority view, which would be WP:UNDUE in a separate article. Confirming this, both of them share an author. Crossroads -talk- 17:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to like to link Wikidata, but the fact that something exists on Wikidata has no importance whatever here. Among all the Wikimedia projects, the Wikidata Notability standard is by definition the weakest, since point #1 accepts anything with one valid sitelink to any Wikimedia property as sufficient to establish notability on Wikidata. So whatever article has the weakest Notability anywhere across all WMF properties, like, say, some random article from Albanian Wiktionary, that is notable enough for Wikidata. Mathglot (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Notability of Q18382802 in Wikipedia was already established by tremendous non-English sources. Some notable topics can be merged by WP:PAGEDECIDE. But there are no serious differences between the number of English scholarly articles about gendersex and endosex. Sharouser (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:GNG, Any language sources can be used to establish notability. "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Sharouser (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

"...in contemporary academic literature they usually have distinct meanings"
Wow. Just... wow.  Tewdar  15:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @Tewdar - This may be my subpar reading skills, but I don't see anything wrong with that phrase. Can you explain what's at issue?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * There's absolutely nothing wrong with it at all. In fact, it is a massive improvement in my opinion. That's why it surprises me that this has been changed without a whiff of comment from anyone.  Tewdar   16:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh! Well, kudos to for this ! I agree it's much better.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I am delighted that you and apparently the other watchers of this article have finally agreed to a more nuanced description of the distinction. 😁  Tewdar   16:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a well-sourced and entirely accurate sentence! We could quibble about whether the 1980s count as "contemporary academic literature" if you're feeling lonely 😁  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm from rural Cornwall. The 1980s are almost futuristic to me. 😁  Tewdar   17:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * See, what I'm trying to say is, in last year's RfC and related discussions, any suggested changes that sought to inappropriately limit the definition to certain fields including but probably not limited to medicine, social sciences, some academic disciplines, biology, law, human rights,ordinary lived reality, governments,corporations,practitioners in many domains, or heaven forfend simply by "academics" would be a fundamental error, opposed by a certainly unlikely and quite possibly unholy alliance consisting of what seemed like every editor with an interest in this article from Crossroads to Newimpartial, from EvergreenFir to CycoMa, and everyone in between. And now, just "contemporary academic literature", and nobody bats an eyelid? Again... wow.  Tewdar   18:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Tewdar, I think the accuracy of the statement is pretty darn obvious, limited only by the fuzzy delimiters of "usually", which are built into the English language. I also think we all know what "contemporary academic literature" is and that nobody would in good faith dispute that, more often than not, in that literature, "sex" and "gender" mean different things. As opposed to non-academic literatures and in speech, where "gender" may still be used as a "polite" (but less accurate) euphemism for "sex", or 20th century academic literatures where terms were much more fluid (in the second half of the century anyway).
 * In all honesty, I'm not sure which nit you are trying to pick, here. Newimpartial (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Since you do not seem to be in a very good mood (😱), I won't bother to try and explain that the so-called nit I am supposedly trying to pick is actually merely surprise. I don't think you've actually read what I've written. If you did, perhaps you should read it again.  Tewdar   21:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't speak to anyone else's preferences, but I do find historicized claims to be generally more compelling than ontological ones. Another factor that may be specific to me, personally, is that in 2022 I found myself more often annoyed by those pretending that there were self-evident ontological and terminological differences between sex and gender, and/or a generally understood, clear relationship betwen the two, than I have been irritated at people treating the distinction as "merely discursive" or "academic". My ire flows among irritants as the tides do. Newimpartial (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This answer still does not explain my surprise that we have gone from "SEX AND GENDER ARE DISTINCT, NO IFS, NO BUTS, NO ARGUMENTS!!!" to the much less hardline "in contemporary academic literature [sex and gender] usually have distinct meanings" without any objections from yourself and others. I think the new lede is much better, personally, as I already said.  Tewdar   21:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the new lead is better than last year's, but the risks of understatement have to be weighted against those of overstatement. And it is certainly better to make no ontological claims (as I believe the current lead does not) than to make ontological claims that are prone to be walked in dubious directions (e.g., to buttress "sex and gender are completely distinct, and only sex is real" or "sex and gender are obviously different, but gender is typically based on sex", both of which I have been encountering on-wiki with increasing frequency). Newimpartial (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Aaaha, I see! You're continuing a conversation you're having with someone else, about something else. That explains everything... 🙄  Tewdar   12:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Re: You're continuing a conversation you're having with someone else, about something else - that's literally what Wikipedia editing is, Tewdar. I'm surprised it's taken you this long to notice. Newimpartial (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the zeitgeist of the project continues to grow 🙄. Funnily enough, I've managed to find several topic areas here where the contributors actually manage to stay on topic, answer fairly simple and reasonable questions appropriately, and not conflate me with other people they happened to be arguing with earlier in the day... perhaps you need to diversify a bit next year. 😁👍  Tewdar  17:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Distinction
There are people who think that sex and gender are the same thing, and there are people who think that they are distinct. How can we best represent this in the article? Born25121642 (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, creating single article for sex and gender(Q18382802) can be a solution. gendersex is an approved term in gender studies Sharouser (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Sex is bimodal not dichotomous
While the claim of dichotomy works with a gametic definition, human sexual differentiation or anatomical identification needs to account for the range of intersex conditions that occur between male and female. True hermaphroditism has been documented in humans. Elaboration on this is especially relevant in this article given the number of nonbinary gender-identities that people are. 2600:1700:E420:7710:41EC:F206:9BED:B09F (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * "anatomical identification" is not the same as anatomical difference. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Science and the Gendered Body
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pndesai3 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2023
Please make sure to add this man had gender dyspmorphia himself and hated his genitals and often spoke in AUTOBUOGRAPHY about how he wanted to castrate himself. His research has not been accredited by the scientific community. Please state all the fact about this mentally ill person so other mentally ill people don't get hurt by his pyscopathic work. 2607:FEA8:9541:16C0:5189:674A:F71E:F470 (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Citation 47 is broken
When you try to check Citation 47, you are redirected to an error page, even though the article named still exists in the site. ThrowawayEpic1000 (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Funcrunch (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)