Talk:Woman/Archive 20

Duplicate paragraph?
This paragraph is duplicated verbatim in the intro and Terminology section: "Trans women have a male sex assignment at birth that does not align with their gender identity, while intersex women may have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology." Only the second instance includes citations. Could one of these be removed or reworded? 27.125.150.28 (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Please semi-protect this talk page permanently
I keep noticing users editing this talk page to say that "stop thinking of trans women as women". Please semi-protect this talk page permanently. Georgia guy (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * That's probably not necessary (especially not permanently), as it would stamp out constructive discussion by unregistered users. Protection policy says that unlike article space, Talk pages are not usually protected, and are semi-protected only for a limited duration in the most severe cases of vandalism. If unconstructive, bad-faith, or off-topic discussions arise, they can just be dealt with accordingly. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 16:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Users just keep inserting this kind of statement over and over again. What's the best way to stop this?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not surprising that this is brought up in the talk page regularly, news articles and books look at the issue all the time: “Since recent YouGov polling finds falling numbers of Britons strongly agreeing that “a transgender woman is a woman”, and rising numbers either somewhat disagreeing or only somewhat agreeing, Joyce may be right about the broad trajectory of public opinion." Maneesh (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think dealing with them using reverts should be enough. If there is an excessive number of rule-breaks 3RR could go into effect. Casspedia  ( talk )  11:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Maneesh; you said Britons. How about Americans?? Georgia guy (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I for one have only seen that particular backwash in the UK. Newimpartial (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That mainstream article from a widely read source was published within a day of my reply, do you really think it would be that surprising if you could find other articles like it? I am not sure what nationality has to do with it, why would you specifically ask about Americans? Since you do: Abigail Shrier's article "‘Transwomen Are Women’ and Other Polite Lies" Maneesh (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comparing the reviews Shrier's writing has received in the UK and in other English-speaking countries, I think it is safe to say that the needle is moving in different directions in the British Isles vs. elsewhere. You should be happy - I am saying that limiting your earlier claim to "Britons" was apt, if vaguely Pythonesque. Newimpartial (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your predications about public opinion polls may or may not be accurate. I'm not sure what they have to do with the fact it is easy to find news articles and books that look at this issue since it is part of a well known controversy. Maneesh (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We can all agree that the topic carries a degree of controversy. You offered a quote from the British press, referring to a poll of "Britons", saying that Joyce may be right about the broad trajectory of public opinion. That was a relevant quote, but there isn't any evidence that said "trajectory" applies elsewhere in the English-speaking world; in fact, the response to Shrier has been much more critical outside the UK than in it. Newimpartial (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The only purpose of both links was to demonstrate that this is a well known controversy so it should be expected to see it brought up in talk (not that public opinion was on one side or the other), the Guardian quote was selected because it explicitly mentioned the claim "transwomen are women" as did Shrier's title. Maneesh (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2021
Change:

A woman is an adult female human.

To:

A woman is an adult female human. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: WP:OVERLINK  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

"A woman is an adult female human" is transphobic
Your opening sentence is a common bigoted dogwhistle used by TERFs/FARTs and other transphobes and trans haters.

Please change this to reflect the fact that men can be women, if they identify as such. Thanks to advances in medical science and gender identity science, the truth is that females don't have a monopoly on being women any more, and this article should make this important point. Or is Wikipedia also a transphobic, bigoted project?

Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.242.232 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith: most situations of this sort are not because of purposeful bigotry, much more often they are simply because nobody has yet proposed something better. Do you have an idea of how to rewrite the opening sentence to better include trans women? Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The IP seems to be unaware that "male" and "female" are terms for gender identity as well as for biological sex. Many reliable sources include trans women as "adult females" because of their (female) gender, so I'm not seeing bigotry here. But if there are better sources, we of course should use them. Newimpartial (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This article's lede paragraph, and the Terminology section, already reflect the fact that trans and intersex women are women ("adult female humans") despite not having a female sex assignment. As noted, ' is often defined as both a sex and a gender identity, so the current definition (the subject of several prior discussions) is not particularly problematic if you take female in that sentence to mean female-gendered rather than female-sexed. The IP's use of questionable phrasing like men can be women, if they identify as such and "advances in... gender identity science" leads me to suspect that their proposal is probably not entirely serious. RoxySaunders (talk ·''' contribs) 16:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the only dogwhistle here is "men can be women". The wording is in accord with the WP:Due weight of many WP:Reliable sources and does not exclude trans women as noted above. Crossroads -talk- 23:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly. I think going with "adult female human being", a variation of Special:Permalink/862333932 adding the word "adult", might be a better choice; the current wording only feels very slightly transphobic at worse. The TERF dogwhistle in question is "adult human female" (see Rationalwiki's definition), which the opening fortunately yet narrowly avoids. Casspedia  ( talk )  11:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "An adult human female" is *exactly* what Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary, the second cite in the article, says. It is absurd to label that as a dogwhistle to anyone and "TERF" is generalized used as an insult,WP:CIV. Maneesh (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Stonewall is not RS
Removing a cite to Stonewall "glossary" was reverted twice. Stonewall is not RS, I'm not sure what they are "experts" at and controversial. WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:BIASED. Maneesh (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You're using The Telegraph to "prove" a bias accusation? D00d. Newimpartial (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ? Search for telegraph here Maneesh (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * From your link, Some editors believe that The Daily Telegraph is biased or opinionated for politics. Yup. Newimpartial (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Some people can believe things, not much we can do about that. What does it say under "status"? A little bit of diligence with google makes it easy to find sources that cover the Stonewall controversy. Maneesh (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe you know that a Perennial Sources entry needs to be read in toto, not just scanned for its colour code, to understand what the community's view actually is. If not, you should.
 * Anyway, you have already linked to the key criterion here: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. They are cited in the article for an uncontroversial "Glossary of Terms", which is entirely unaffected by the controversy discussed in The Telegraph. Newimpartial (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You are not interpreting correctly. Again, Stonewall is controversial, that is shown in the telegraph article and it is easy to find other sources that show the same, and not RS. Controversial organizations can still be reliable but WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, citing this controversial organization is not an appropriate thing to do in this article. Maneesh (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Since they are an advocacy group, I see no reason to cite them when a much better source is already being cited that covers the material already and when editors are objecting to it. Crossroads -talk- 23:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * To be sure, the WPATH reference does not say anything material about "intersex women" that I can see. Maneesh (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It has an entry about disorders of sex development which also mentions the term "intersex". Crossroads -talk- 04:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No mention of "intersex women" or "DSD women", in fact not a single occurrence of "woman" or "women" in the relevant section (which has a distinct focus on clinical GD), WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Intersex is a contested term, there is considerable disagreement on what "intersex" means (MOS:WTW). The same is true for DSD. It's hard to imagine WPATH as RS for "intersex". The controversy, sensitivity and details as well as lack of a source that supports the article's claim: "intersex women may have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology", without WP:SYNTH, make this claim unsuitable to include here. The focus of most RS on this issue are *AIS genetic males, some sources/organizations/activists take strong positions that *AIS individuals are women, other prominent *AIS activists make it clear that they do not consider themselves women. The issue is fraught with historical deception and complexity. As has been discussed here before, most intersex people (according to specific definitions) are uncontroversially women (LOCAH). Best to leave these claims that have complex backgrounds of controversy out of the article, it does not affect the accuracy of the fundamental claims of "typical" women in the article; the articles on those specific conditions can describe controversy around those issues. Maneesh (talk) 06:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The photo
Can I ask why my comment about the photo has been instantly removed please? I made a comment about the person in the photo on the main page and I will repeat as it is very relevant to this page. Why have you posted a photo of a person that presents in a traditionally feminine way and assumed that is a woman? That's a massive generalization and totally unacceptable which is why trans issues are so misunderstood. Just because somebody looks like a woman, it doesn't mean they are. That person could be non-gender for all you know. Unless you specifically know that the person in the photo is a woman and can cite a reference to reflect that, may I suggest the photo is changed to a person who does in fact identify as a woman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.194.217 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Satire? Tewdar (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Apparently the name of the person in the photo is "Agnes". The word "woman" is not found among the numerous tags on the source Flickr account, alas. Tewdar (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * She is tagged as a "female". Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * On a different photo, taken six years previously. Tewdar (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This photo which is labeled "female" was taken 14 days after the lead photo. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Good to know. Still, it would be nice if images purporting to be representative of a particular gender contained some sort of affirmation by the person depicted that they actually do identify as that gender, regardless of whether the OP was attempting satire or not. Tewdar (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Lovely photos on that page... Tewdar (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope this isn't a serious objection. Aside from the fact we just went through a massive RfC to pick this photo, the person in the photo is (1) adult (2) female and (3) human. She is clearly not wanting to be identified as anything else. Given that the photo was apparently taken in Malaysia, I doubt she would even have a concept of non-gender or of verbally "affirming" her gender aside from simply presenting like she does. The idea that we can never "assume" someone's gender is a distortion and an extremist position that simply is not how the world works, is not how innate human psychology works, and does not work in the real world for classifying images. It's a big part of why trans people seek to pass. Pretending not to know offends far more people (cis and trans) than "assuming", and makes it impossible to detect things like gender bias. The IP's comment reads to me very much like satire, and I see why the original version was removed as unconstructive, although I am unsure if TPG technically permits that. In any case, I cannot take it seriously. Please let this die and be archived. Crossroads -talk- 05:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It's interesting to see someone apply this genre of argument to a category like "woman"; I'm used to seeing people take it as given that there are "women" all over the world and throughout history, even among people whose [non-English] language doesn't have the [English] word "woman" and/or in eras before the word "woman" existed, only turning around and concern-troll about whether or not it's right to regard e.g. historical or non-English-speaking gay or trans people as "gay" or "trans". I agree with the users above that based on the available evidence, the person is a woman, and I'm glad we agree that it can sometimes be OK to 'project' or 'assume' labels. (Consider for a moment how many of the people we use as images of Man, Woman, Human, etc even speak English to be able to identify as "man", "woman", "human", etc in those words, not to mention that some of the images we have in various articles of historical Chinese or German people or things or places, etc, are of people/things from before English and its word "Chinese" existed for people to identify with, or before a singular Germany existed, respectively : clearly, we can sometimes surmise the applicability of labels, like here.) -sche (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Justifying assuming instead of aiming for more references is undermining what makes Wikipedia work. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not only do many adhere to WP:BLUESKY, but this is an extreme and unworkable position as I laid out above. It is like asking that we remove all pictures from cat until we get published references that those are, indeed, cats. Or, that we need a reliable source that the text characters in the article represent the words we mean to say, or we are assuming. It's absurd. Someone please close and archive this. Crossroads -talk- 20:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Asking for closing the discussion just because of being annoyed by it is a poor mindset. But about the main issue: no one asked for consent from cats, please dont ridicule, there is a difference between asking a flickr user and asking a cat and thats exactly what I meant. For example no one will expect an archeologist to ask a mummy if they were a particularly pharaoh, instead they will use what they have as proof and look for better proof, as should we. There are a plethora of free images of women that are stated as such. So I find it problematic to shake this off with some poor arguments, but in context of just having found an image I am not for throwing it out immediatly again. What I would suggest as a constructive solution, contrary to the blocking arguments, is to maybe contact the photographer and get confirmation!? Afterall I do agree we dont have to cite that the sky is blue in an article about landscape paintings, but it might be useful in an article about the effects of the atmosphere and go into depth how this is true, as it is with this article where it is about the issue important to realy have a picture of a woman. We are not asking to get references where or when the picture was taken, or other trivial details. Please be constructive or at least acknowledge that it would be ideal, but ridiculing it just emplyfies the problem/critique. Nsae Comp (talk) 07:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I asked the person from flickr who uploaded and (yes) presumably has also taken the picture and knows the person personally. John Ragai, the name of the uploader/photographer, has validated that the picture can be used to portray a woman. So to all who were annoyed by a simple discussion thread like this: simple constructive solution, noe you can close the thread, if you ask me. Nsae Comp (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Women's shelter
Greetings,

Request for inputs: A Peer review request has been made for the article Women's shelter to  brainstorm and understand information gaps and uncovered areas and to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved, please do share your inputs at the review page.

Thanks and warm regards

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Homemaker only?
I can think of at least one other profession typical for traditional women. On the other end of spectrum, staying celibate for religious/cult reasons was also common. Why are you sugarcoating human nature? Are those women not women?2A02:8070:D1AE:3300:1871:5D94:184F:D1CF (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And have many women not always been working on the land? The historical perspective of the article seems to be pretty petit-bourgeois here!Retal (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting point, and it would be useful to look into whether it is covered in sources (and how, and how much weight it is given). Can you help with that? -sche (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Transphobia
This piece is basically a gender critical ideological statement and ignores all definitions of man or woman as being performative social constructs which are well described by the WHO. 'Adult Human Female' is just an ideological grab trying to link gender identity with reproductive capacity Setaynivek (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * This issue is brought up frequently; it might behoove you to read into this talk page's archives to see some of the (many) prior discussions on this matter. In fact, one such discussion appears on this very page, at.
 * Overwhelmingly, both medical and mainstream dictionaries define woman as "an adult female human", or similar . For better or worse, Wikipedia generally sticks to what reliable sources say—being an "ideological grab" is not by itself a sufficient reason to change the definition to something else. If you know of a better definition (preferably, one attributed to a reliable source), we'd all be very happy to hear it. If you find the definitions provided by OED and Merriam-Webster to be problematic, take it up with them, not us.
 * It's true that this definition could be read as tacitly implying that only AFAB people are women. Thankfully, not two paragraphs later, the article dispels this implication by explicitly emphasizing that trans and intersex women as women despite possibly not having a female sex assignment. Furthermore, the word female can mean either female-sexed or female-gendered. Granted, the linked article Female is mostly about the female sex, rather than the female gender identity (again, reflecting biases in reliable sources), but it does acknowledge the distinction. Having transitive logical consistency between the ledes of these articles would be nice, but it's not a stated goal of Wikipedia.
 * Kind regards, RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 21:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Call for a taskforce to improve the quality of the article!
I just edited and structured the jumbled up section about biology. The biology section was even missing menopause! It would seem that this whole article has been very neglected especially regarding the spectrum of womens biology and its implication for the definition of women. I have never applied for some sort of Wikipedia taskforce. So I ask kindly if anyone has the proficency to address the terrible state that this article is in, particularly because its not an article about a trivial subject.

Such a taskforce would need to have a special sensitivity towards the (rightly) much raised issue of transphobia in this article.

A good start would be to expand on how genetics produce the spectrum of biology of women. This can be a good start to get beyond dictionary definitions of "woman" and elobrate on variety and expand beyond the inpreciseness of dictionary definitons. I started by moving the genetics first in the biology section, it is telling about the state and authorship of this article that previously the biology section didnt start with the genetics but with the organs, if you ask me.

Together towards a better Wikipedia for everyone! Yours, Nsae Comp (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What is the reasoning behind calling this article transphobic? Maneesh (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * That you can read in previous discussions. I am asking for a thurough improvement of the article's quality, initiated by the simple shocking fact that after 20 years a basic article as this didnt have a single mention of menopause. And thats just an example. As I said I started by improving the structure, but e.g. I have only a very basic biology knowledge, so I am asking for a thurough improvement by people who know biology and even more importantly know how to attract competent editors. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Those previous complaints were based on false premises. 'Spectrum' is a scientifically meaningless buzzword if used in reference to biology. Still, there can be room for improvement based on WP:MEDRS sources about women's biology. Crossroads -talk- 21:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I see there is no one willing to improve and hear critique. This article goes on my private list of jammed articles. Nsae Comp (talk) 07:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ? You are not the only that has corrected long standing incorrect information in this article. There have even been edits since yours (which has no cite for menopause). No one is stopping anyone from improving the article and the fact that we are discussing here makes is clear that some people are interested in hearing critiques. Maneesh (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for prooving me incorrect and participating, nothing else was I hoping is possible. (Citation added; easy fix) So can we get some steps done to raise the attention for a critical and competent review for this article instead of just opposing each other. Nsae Comp (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

4 sources is too much for a single sentence
Look at this sentence. Puberty in females triggers changes in the body that enable sexual reproduction via fertilization. In response to chemical signals from the pituitary gland of the brain, ovaries produce estrogen that stimulates maturation of the body, including increased height and weight, body hair growth, breast development and menarche (the onset of menstruation) which generally occurs between ages 12–13.[18][19][20][21]

That’s literally four sources for a single sentence. This is is pure wp:CITEKILL.CycoMa (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a subjective opinion. 4 cites isn't uncommon. If it was 5 or more, I get it, but I don't see the need to add the clutter of a tag. Crossroads -talk- 05:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

"Women's clothing varies highly in different cultures."
I have never been to Afghanistan, but I can say with certainty that most Japanese women do not walk around in kimonos on a day-to-day basis, and most normally dress more like the German women in the photo on the right. Perhaps replace the photo on the right with a different photo and change "Women's clothing" to "Traditional women's clothing"? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd support that. We'd be better off removing the collage entirely than keeping the current version. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

"Arehle" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Arehle. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Certes (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Is a Black Females also considered a "woman"? ( noticed every other ethnicity is represented in photographs)
I find it disturbing that there is not one photograph of the original woman - the Black Woman. This is beyond racist. 2601:48:C600:8FF0:6951:3019:DA2A:5AF9 (talk) 07:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

✅ Sure. Why not. Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Women's Health reverts
I had replaced the introduction to Woman and it has been reverted. The initial sentences are unsupported (which groups are advocating? what does 'holistic' mean here?). There is no mention of the ultimate reason for the sex specificity in health, which is women's sex chromosome complement. The WHO link provided for support for "gender" as (merely) a "social determinant" of health doesn't look anything like WP:RS and I don't even see the support when I click the link. The writing I had added was a clear improvement, a very comprehensive overview and is supported by a high quality source. A. C. Santacruz's edit summary complains that my edits "Shift towards describing women in terms of chromosome absolutes..." this is ridiculous particularly given the high priority the existing wp article (naturally) gives to chromosomes. Sex chromosomes are *the only* known factor the results in the zygote developing through the female vs. male pathway. It is an obscene omission to not mention chromosomes in the context of women's health. Maneesh (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I said absolutes as not all women have only XX chromosomes (some might have more, etc.). Women's health is affected by social and cultural factors as well as biological ones, and so removing that context from the section over-simplifies women's health (this balance is better held in the article Women's health). I agree that the WHO link is inadequate for the section and a better one is needed, but I don't think that merits completely replacing the section towards an exclusively biological description. I therefore disagree on your edit being a "very comprehensive overview". The section definitely needs a rewrite, but it will take more than a single source to do so. Note as well that this section should be a summary of the more expansive article focused on the topic, so it should work as a general introduction to the topic. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  20:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Was the chromosome language in the same passages of the sources as the health information you were citing? If not, your text was WP:SYNTH as well as UNDUE. Newimpartial (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I made this adjustment. We do not give WP:UNDUE weight to rare conditions in which a woman might have chromosomes other than XX. When researchers study sex differences, they generally concentrate on the 99+% without those conditions. Yes, even sex differences in cellular processes are studied. Environmental factors - which includes social environment - is also mentioned. It could be mentioned more specifically, but the previous text was not very good, and the new source may even comment on that as well. Crossroads -talk- 20:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I do think your edit is an improvement to 's and brings us closer to a good section. However, I maintain that more information should be added on social and cultural effects of womanhood on women's health. Another issue with equating womanhood with XX is that it ignores the existence of trans women as women, so while trans women are not necessarily subject to many of the issues in women's health, perhaps wording it as "cis women" rather than an overly formal "females" would be a better section? Not that I hold that opinion too strongly, but I'll wait and see what others say on the matter. With respects to the source, I agree that it is miles better than the WHO one, but we should add other sources as well I think. The article on women's health provides many that could be added here. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  20:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Small note, the article on women's health mentions chromosomal makeup only once, and very briefly, which is why I first thought over-emphasizing it in this description seems like a mistake. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  20:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What a shamefully poor article then, good thing WP is not RS. Maneesh (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No need to be so patronizing, . The article on Women's health is a GA, which is why I mentioned it as a good reference on how to word this section. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  23:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What article are you referring to? Maneesh (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Women's health Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  20:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed it, since we don't need to specify that any more than certain other aspects of female biology. To be clear, it did speak of "females", and we do need to be able to speak in clear terms about female biology without getting bogged down in every exception, of which there are all sorts. But anyway. Crossroads -talk- 20:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Maneesh, adding that back in as-is was not optimal. The text already mentions molecular differences. You can see above that the text is already causing people to try to bring gender identity into it. Perhaps we can just change it to say something about the cellular level? We don't need to specify chromosomes there any more than we do other specific aspects like naming parts of the female reproductive system. Crossroads -talk- 20:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I added the word "genes", which should be enough. Crossroads -talk- 20:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You have strange notions of "optimal" and elementary biology then. What you've put in is counter to elementary biological facts and obscenely misrepresentative of the top-tier source here. First sentence and chapter 2: "Every Cell Has a Sex - The biological differences between the sexes have long been recognized at the biochemical and cellular levels. Rapid advances in molecular biology have revealed the genetic and molecular bases of a number of sex-based differences in health and human disease, some of which are attributed to sexual genotype—XX in the female and XY in the male. Genes on the sex chromosomes can be expressed differently between males and females because of the presence of either single or double copies of the gene and because of the phenomena of different meiotic effects, X inactivation, and genetic imprinting. The inheritance of either a male or a female genotype is further influenced by the source (maternal or paternal) of the X chromosome. The relative roles of the sex chromosome genes and their expression explains X-chromosome-linked disease and is likely to illuminate the reasons for heterogeneous expression of some diseases within and between the sexes." EDIT: The bolding of chromosomes is in the original text. If you try and summarize that key message from this source about women's health without using words like "sex chromosome", you are deluding yourself. Contrived language to accodmodate religous gender identity concerns will result in an obscene articles with strange qualifiers throughout. The section on women's health is already specific to women with XX chromosomes, because you can be sure that all those enriched prevalences and specificities of lupus, breast cancer, ovarian cancer are supported by studies on adult human females with XX chromosomes. They probably apply to X0 and XXX women since those women are adult human females for the underlying reason that the human fetus can be viable to sex chromosomes aneuploidies due to effects like X inactivation. They *do not* apply to trans identifying males. "sex specific genes" is not even a little correct, the only sex specific genes are on the Y chromosome and the intro I've quoted in "Every Cell Has a Sex" explains how female and male cells are different as a complex outcome of sex chromosome complement, not just a few genes on the Y chromosome. You best review the source to gain a better understanding of sex differences in health.  Look at how, for instance, we discuss sex differences in immunity in reliable sources; you'll always find chromosomes right away since they are so fundamental. Maneesh (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Where does "Every cell has a sex" make relevant, RS statements about women's health that are used in this article? I must have missed that. Also, when you say of the Nature article, we discuss, have you made a WP:COI declaration in this field of scholarship? I must have missed that, too. Newimpartial (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You must've missed the 2nd sentence in the above quote then, bolded in case you miss it again: "Rapid advances in molecular biology have revealed the genetic and molecular bases of a number of sex-based differences in health and human disease, some of which are attributed to sexual genotype—XX in the female and XY in the male.. That is a a claim about women's, adult human females, health. What in the world are you talking about re: COI? Maneesh (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Maneesh, why do you think the passage you quoted above is a helpful addition to this article? Why do you think the source in question is a WP:MEDRS for women's health? And are you under the impression that there is consensus of other editors to include material based on this source, in the article?
 * As far as WP:COI goes, if you write or publish in this field, might cite yourself (or write about your professional rivals), etc., you may have COI and if that is possible, policy requires that you declare any potential COI for transparency purposes. Do you now understand? Newimpartial (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing I've said is inaccessible to anyone with google and a mere laymen's understanding of biology. You have no basis to even suggest COI. Maneesh (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Then why did you say we discuss with reference to a piece in Nature? You seemed to be referring to how things are discussed in RS, not on WP. Newimpartial (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * People use "we" informally like that all the time. we = people who discuss science seriously.Maneesh (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Two comments. Firstly, the section in this article is meant to be a very brief, general summary of the topic of women's health. Getting so hyperspecific on the subject of genes is unnecessary to do so here, and perhaps more appropriate to the main article for that. Secondly, we're not arguing about your source. We're arguing about the whole topic of women's health. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  23:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * EDIT [correct/calrify]: If you want to deny the claim I've quoted above in bold from the RS is not fundamental claim about women's health, you need to read more carefully. EDIT: Sex chromosomes are not in any way "hyper specific", they are the fundamental reason why women are women and men are men. Maneesh (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate if you could rephrase your comment. As it stands I genuinely don't understand what you mean. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  00:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We seem to be straying heavily into WP:FORUM territory here. While an interesting, albeit somewhat incorrect due to its simplicity, diversion, what does this have to do with the content being revised in the article? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The section on women's health open with describing the importance of sex differences beyond factors related to reproduction. "Top tier" sources as I have provided open with attributing some of these differences to sex chromosomes in bold writing, the mention of which has been removed in the article for religious concerns that are related to gender identity. Maneesh (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Clarification is much appreciated. The section is about a general overview on women's health, not why "women are women, and men are men". The genetic differences of most women to most men are but one aspect of women's health, not the end all be all. I think that the wording proposed by and myself does a good job of both mentioning the importance of genetic influence on women's health while staying within the purview of the section.  Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  00:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You remain confused as to why RS specifically mention sex chromosomes, in bold, wrt to women's health. The only way to talk about those genetic differences is in terms of sex chromosomes, not "sex-specific genes" (both males and females have an X chromosome) which is plain dead wrong. Maneesh (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I tried adding "sex chromosomes" then, in place of "genes" which you reverted. I don't recommend specifying the chromosomes again, not only because that is already done higher in the article, but because you can see firsthand it is a magnet for controversy which can be easily sidestepped without loss of meaning. Crossroads -talk- 05:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that clarifying sex chromosomes (XX vs. XY) in this section is considered controversial here, when it is standard practice in MEDRS, highlights a severe integrity problem here and the surrounding comments make it clear editors seem uncomfortable with the plain fact that understanding women's health is tied to understanding XX chromosomes vs XY chromosomes. Somewhere in the recent edits "hormonal milieu" has been removed. Sex chromosomes and hormonal milieu are always specified as the primary cellular biological sex difference that drives health differences. It must be re-inserted. It is specified in the existing cite and for the sake of making it crystal clear, from NIH's OWHR: "There are 2 variables that are constitutively different between males and females: the sex chromosome complement (XX vs. XY) and gonadal hormones (ovarian vs. testicular secretions)." Maneesh (talk) 05:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to show the science-denial present in editors on this page, another paper that says it crystal clear: "Women’s health, viewed through the lens of sex differences, incorporates research into reproductive health and the physiological processes directed by the XX chromosomal complement, including hormonal changes accompanying puberty, pregnancy, and menopause that have lifelong consequences."Maneesh (talk) 06:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I added a brief mention of hormones too. I doubt that would be controversial. I get being frustrated with the way these discussions sometimes go, but I think it's best to not get too worried about assuming that any version of what you have in mind will be rejected, or to get caught up in rhetoric toward other editors. And yeah, sometimes we have to compromise because of what the other editors who happen to be around are saying. I think the text for the section now is good (except for the additional sentence agreed below which will be added later). Crossroads -talk- 06:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked at this again and can see that "sex chromosomes" aren't defined anywhere in the article, it isn't clear to the reader that the phrase Normally cells from females contain two X chromosomes, maps to the sex chromosomes mentioned later. The clearest most concise way to address this lack of clarify is to mention the "XX sex chromosomal complement" or something like "XX vs. XY" explicitly the way the RS do as I have quoted above. It is noteworthy that some editors seem ready to engage in edit wars over this rather obvious way of discussing things. Maneesh (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Your assessments of other editors are much more appropriate for user talk pages than this discussion here. Encouraging animosity is not the way to go if you want consensus. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  09:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I liked your revised edit, and thought if we added a single sentence along the lines of "The differing economic and social freedoms of women depending on their cultural background also have significant effects on their health, both through limiting their access to appropriate healthcare services and economic limitations preventing them from seeking treatment" would be good enough to round out the section as comprehensive. However, reverted that. My proposed edit would be as follows:
 * Factors that specifically affect the health of women vs. men are most evident in those related to reproduction, but sex differences have been identified from the molecular to the behavioral scale. Some of these differences are subtle and difficult to explain, partly due to the fact that it is difficult to separate the health effects of inherent biological factors from the effects of the surrounding environment they exist in. Sex-specific genes, lifestyles, metabolism, immune system function, and sensitivity to environmental factors is believed to contribute to sex differences in health at the levels of physiology, perception, and cognition. Women can have distinct responses to drugs and thresholds for diagnostic parameters. Additionally, the differing economic and social freedoms of women depending on their cultural background also have significant effects on their health, both through limiting their access to appropriate healthcare services, limitations preventing them from seeking treatment, and cultural practices which may be harmful to their health."
 * I'm somewhat unsure of what sources to site for my addition, but they are supported within Women's health so it would just be an issue of getting the refs and making sure they support the text. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  21:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah adding a sentence like that is good. We just need a source for verification and we should be good. Crossroads -talk- 21:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Deliberately ambiguous language
"Trans women have a male sex assignment at birth that does not align with their gender identity" Why is the phrase "male sex assignment at birth" instead of a simple "male". Even then this article is about women. "intersex women may have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology" Intersex is chromosomal abnormalities which do not change what female biology is. Just like down syndrome women don't challenge the "notions" of biology. Intersex is not a normal and healthy occurrence in humans that's why it is classified as an chromosomal anomaly. Just curious and wanting to know more without hurting anyone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:E280:3D03:7D:9132:527E:643:CCF6 (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It is the correct terminology, so we use what the medical sources use. See WP:MEDRS and WP:BMI for some relevant guidelines and explanatory supplements to said guidelines that are relevant for this case. Hope this helps! A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 19:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Katxzhang.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Trans man is a woman?
I know that trying to make an edit to the lede on this page is difficult. However, I do have a proposal I think will be well received.

Reading the current definition, it would appear that trans men are classified as women as per, "A woman is an adult female human," which is not further clarified in the specific case of trans men. What is the editor appetite on changing, "Trans women develop a gender identity that does not align with their male sex assignment at birth, while intersex women may have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology." to read:

"Trans women develop a gender identity that does not align with their male sex assignment at birth, while intersex women may have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology. Conversely, trans men's gender identity preclude them from being considered women. "Theheezy (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Theheezy. The word female is defined as written in the topic just above. Is short a female is someone that can produce "the large non-mobile ova (egg cells)". To me that raises some questions. We could avoid that by changing definition so a woman have "a female gender identity." --MGA73 (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This was covered above. "Female" is at times defined in terms of gender and the "female" article covers that; also, the definition used here is that which is used across dictionaries and per the WP:WEIGHT of reliable sources. This was already decided upon by an RfC, as noted above. Crossroads -talk- 05:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * not sure if it was a reply to me or not. But if I Google “female meaning” the first few definitions is something like. “Of the sex that can produce ova” where the article on Wikipedia say “produces ova”. I think that makes a big difference. It is correct to say that a 98 yr old woman is of the sex that can produce ova but is most likely incorrect to say what she produces ova. It may not solve all questions but it would be a start. --MGA73 (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think a problem that people keep running into is that they are trying to create a single definition of a "woman". Perhaps there is no single definition of a woman, nor does there have to be. We can include multiple definitions of what a "woman" is in the same article. One definition of a woman is an adult human female, and female being the sex that produces ova. And another definition of a woman is an adult human who identifies as a woman. So trans men would be included in the first definition, but excluded from the second. And trans women would be included in the second definition, but excluded from the first. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Femininity
Here's a message as part of the bold, revert and discuss cycle. The section Femininity is an exact copy of a previous version of the lead section of Femininity. At that article, after some deliberation and constructive editing, we have reworded some sentenced as to improve a neutral point of view (diff: ). The lead section on this page has been stable for a while. I have applied the changes in wording in that lead section to the section at hand in this article, but have been reverted by Newimpartial.

On a deeper level, I'm doubting whether exactly copying the lead section is a good idea, because it duplicates the scope of Femininity. But if we are duplicating it anyway, my proposal would be to adopt the changes made to this lead section and change the Femininity section accordingly.

Note that the same issue is present at Man, where the same user has reverted my changes. I have left a note on it's talk page referring to this discussion. The main discussion is at talk:Man. Cheers, Pyrite Pro  (talk) 08:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As with the parallel question at Talk:Man, per SUMMARY this section should align with the consensus material at Femininity. A direct copy isn't good since it will include many hyperlinks that shouldn't be part of the body of this article.  Ignoring the links and sourcing, if the updated text more accurately reflects the current consensus text of Femininity then that, not the prior text, should be used here.  Note that exact copy pastes almost never work correctly due to things like improproper hyperlinks.  It certainly doesn't make sense to have a self referencing link to the Woman article. Springee (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's keep the discussion in the Talk:Man thread, please. Newimpartial (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but please do not hold discussions in another article that affect this article in an informal fashion,, , . If you wish to establish a common consensus between the two articles I would highly recommend doing an RfC on both, and doing so in neither this article nor the other (perhaps in a noticeboard of some kind). A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 18:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And judging by the thread in Man, there are appeals to local consensus in Masculinity, which Newimpartial regards as a page watched by few editors (I trust their opinion on this wholeheartedly). If large changes in all of these articles are being discussed in this reverse-funnel fashion (where the smallest, most local of consensus is then spread onto larger articles by means of precedent rather than discussion) that is to me a cause for concern and possibly problematic. This should be discussed in a more formal discussion in a page or noticeboard that supersedes all of these articles (say, Gender) or a noticeboard like NPOV as I can't find a proper noticeboard in this case. One shouldn't be made to follow 4 links to a past discussion in Masculinity to properly respond to a concern raised in Woman. If the concern is shared between the articles, let's treat it that way. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 18:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In my view, it isn't yet time for an RfC. The changes to Masculinity and Femininity since mid-2021 should be scrutinized WRT their sources, and any conflict about that resolved at NPOVN, and then changes can be made at the main Man and Woman articles with disputes resolved as necessary. At least, that's how I see it. Newimpartial (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * However you wish to see it is fine by me, or whatever way y'all wish to proceed in discussing this. However, you must be careful not to argue by precedent when the consensus is not global nor attempts to make it so have been made. Statements above like 's Ignoring the links and sourcing, if the updated text more accurately reflects the current consensus text of Femininity then that, not the prior text, should be used here. and 's At that article, after some deliberation and constructive editing, we have reworded some sentenced as to improve a neutral point of view [...] I have applied the changes in wording in [Femininity's] lead section to the section at hand in this article [...] indicate the reverse-funnel approach is being taken, which is my point of contention. I personally have no opinion on the changes, just the procedure being taken or underlying assumptions made when discussing them. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 19:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * One way to address that is have the discussion on the article page but post discussion notices here/other appropriate locations. Per SUMMARY this shouldn't be a reverse funnel since the content here should be driven by the other article.  If this article is in fact the better discussion then that can be used to justify changing things at the other article.  We shouldn't assume that the higher traffic here implies the presentation here has a stronger consensus since many visitors to this page may be interested in other aspects.  Regardless, as I said at talk:Man, it would be a good idea to pause any changes and try to get broader input.  If this version is the "correct" one then we need to reflect that at the primary article.  Regardless both need to say the same thing.  Springee (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we agree on most of what we're saying, . My point is not that this article shouldn't be affected a consensus in the other, but that one should not be able to make changes to an article based on a previous consensus in the child article where the parent one was not properly notified as the consensus was being reached. I would see that consensus as holding no right over this one, as in if the consensus in the child is reverted on the parent, the consensus does not apply and it must be re-discussed on the parent as well. And if then the two consensuses differ an RfC is most definitely necessary. Regarding the size of the traffic, I pointed it out due to how local consensus by few editors cannot be used as binding consensus on a less local or site-wide level. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 19:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that these changes weren't scrutinized yet? Take a look at the revision history of Femininity and Masculinity, and see for yourself how many reverts took place on matters such as this. These pages are quite heavily watched. Not as much as Man and Woman, but XTools indicates a number of views and editors half of Femininity and Masculinity. Note that my first edit to Masculinity was even improved by a critical and experienced editor. So I propose to move past the point that 'local' consensus on Masculinity and Femininity isn't reached yet. Of course you're more than welcome to try to change consensus on these pages.
 * Let me try to build 'local' consensus right here, as I'm not interested in bringing a set of relatively small changes to a large noticeboard myself. If you take a look at the diff between my proposed edit and your revert, what makes that you think it was 'better before'? What would you change in my proposal to agree with change? Cheers, Pyrite Pro  (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Crossroads may be an experienced editor, but that doesn't guarantee the NPOV of his edits - or yours. I have looked at the edit histories and Talk page histories of the two child articles, and I'm not seeing much scrutiny or much participation, to be honest. I also don't see any urgency in changing the main articles until the child articles clearly meet NPOV, which isn't what I see at the moment. What I see is weasel language and cite-bombing in support of the views of small minorities within the RS. Newimpartial (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:EDITCON, there is presumed consensus on the relevant changes at Masculinity and Femininity. Feel free to try to change local consensus or build a global consensus. In the mean time, WP:SUMMARY gives the green light instruction to let Woman reflect the contents of Femininity. But here is me trying to collaborate again: what is the exact reason you reject my proposed changes? Cheers, Pyrite Pro  (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Woah hold on, you don't have a green light if someone reverts you, per WP:BRD. Your collaboration here is greatly appreciated, of course. Please make note of the recommendations and myself give above, namely to wait until discussion here is finished (or elsewhere if the question is posed to wider discussion). A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 19:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay 'green light' was not the right phrasing. Don't worry, I'm not jumping to edits before the discussion ends. Cheers, Pyrite Pro  (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I told you the reason, Pyrite: the requirement for NPOV. In your proposal, the "part of femininity is biological" POV is given unDUE prominence in wikivoice while the "femininity is socially constructed" statement - with which essentially no RS disagree - is unnecessarily attributed to sociologists. This is currently under active revision/discussion at Femininity, so let's wait for that to stabilize, please. Newimpartial (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)