Talk:Woman/Archive 21

LGBT or LGBF??
Lately, someone made an edit to this talk page using the "LGBT is really LGBF" point of view. I reverted it, but it was made again and I reverted it again. Do you think this kind of edit will be made a lot?? (Please note that the F in LGBF stands for "fake-gendered", which is the kind of person laypeople look at transgender people as.) Georgia guy (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Typically reverts are not made on talk pages, despite the content of the comment. Theheezy (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That was a forum post. If you disagree, please explain why, and please explain what the best way to hide the post is. Georgia guy (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, we should follow WP:DR here and not hide the post. It being a forum post is no grounds to ignore WP:Talk_page_guidelines. You could argue that it is trolling, but I think that is not conclusive. In general, I am strongly against reverting on talk pages. Theheezy (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , could you please undo your revert as I would prefer not to get into a revert war? I'm hoping you're okay with the justification I have provided. Theheezy (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a forum post. Do you really think forum posts should be okay?? Georgia guy (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not think it was a forum post. Pabsoluterince (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * An inflammatory statement of personal opinion would be a "forum" post.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above, it is a forum post. Additionally, per WP:TALKNO those kinds of comments are not acceptable on talk pages, and doubly so due to the harm their statement can cause trans editors and readers. I don't see much ground on which the comment could stand, really. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 16:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Female facial hair
Facial hair is quite common in women, even though it's even more common in males, and is often completely idiopathic in women. Some women naturally grow full beards. And hormonal imbalances such as PCOS can be a cause of facial hair in women, but what constitutes a hormonal imbalance isn't always very straightforward, as everyone is different. PCOS also often starts in the brain and in these cases is present all of a woman's life, with the condition manifesting itself physically during puberty or reproductive age. Facial hair in women is not "just a medical anomaly" -- the facial hair is part of someone, and also relatively common. Not everyone chooses to remove their facial hair, and an overwhelmingly significant amount of women who keep their visible beards are entirely cisgender. More should be emphasized about facial hair in women being natural and normal, because it IS, no matter what the sideshow business tried to do in order to exploit people for their differences.

Also, it's possible to identify as a type of nonbinary and still have an attachment to one's birth-assigned sex. I think it would be fair to cover this in the article. Thanks! 2601:98A:400:8910:1853:F8:270F:A535 (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This facial hair stuff is highly doubtful, and you haven't presented any WP:MEDRS for these claims. Women without hormonal imbalances do not have significant facial hair, and it should not be presented as a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Crossroads -talk- 06:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Differences between the "Man" and "Woman" articles
This Woman article has this phrase in the lede "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." I see that the article Man does not say anything about transmen in the lede; instead it has a short section called "Sexuality and gender" where this is addressed. I see no reason why the Woman article should not do the same. Is it really necessary to address transwomen in the lede ? (removing this mention from the lede would not exclude transwomen, since the lede reads "Typically, women have two X chromosomes and are capable of pregnancy and giving birth from puberty until menopause") If it is considered necessary to address transwomen in the lede of the Woman article, why doesn't the Man article address transmen in the lede? Editors might want to consider that lots of readers might notice these discrepancies between the Man and Woman articles and might ask themselves what reasons exist for them. 2A02:2F0F:B0FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:CCA9 (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I think we should include a bit adressing trans men in the lede of the article on Man. --1234567891011a (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * AFAICT, the consensus to include trans and intersex women here in the lead is the result of Talk:Woman/Archive 14. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the mere fact that another article covers a subject with different weight is not a strong reason to change this one. Man is a different article, written (mostly) by different people, and it's a fair bit less developed than this one. As for exactly why? I can only speculate that it's received less attention and discussion because transmasculine identities are far more accepted, far less politicized, and sometimes overlooked in discussions of trans issues.
 * Based on your suggestion, I did make this edit to Man, attempting to improve that article's existing coverage of trans men. Further discussion about improving that article should happen at Talk:Man. Regards, RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 23:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Article Header: What to include
Recently I engaged in a squabble in editing the header for the article. I did not plan for an edit war, as I accidentally did a similar thing for the Q-Anon header. However, I thought my new edits would be sufficient. Clearly not as my new edit was undid, "I didn't say that your claim was unsupported by your source. I said the source is not sufficient support - this is a disputed statement, that isn't supported by most sources. You can't just add it here on the basis of one sloppily written text." I actually planned to edit it further as my interpretation was actually incorrect, but this logic is flawed. I keep seeing how the typical exclusive X-chromosome model for a woman is supposedly "disputed", however I've yet to see a source on this. So I open this for discussion.

Furthermore, this was hardly "sloppily written", if this was referring to my citation. The book I sourced is a staple handbook for genetics,and one which has gone over 5 editions in the span of at-least 20 years. It aims to compile all relevant research in the field of genetics, and is a fairly accurate secondary source. It was recommended to me as a college student, and has an extensive bibliography. Looking at the person who has undid my statements, I believe they are biased in this aspect as they have the title of "Nonbinary" as a descriptor. So clearly they would have a post-modernist interpretation of sex/gender, as a critical position, or modernist position, which gives leverage to the idea that a woman lacks a Y-chromosome would be something they were against.

Speaking to my own biases. I would say I am opposed to post-modernism, and am a critical realist. I believe post-modernism has some validity, but it lacks a holistic view. When I say this article, I intended to write on the talk page on why "typically" should be omitted, but as I looked at the atlas, this makes sense. Typically seems justified to be included, but at the same time my edit suggestion seems to have merit. But, it was flawed, in the same section of the book, it mentions individuals with an XY chromosome which they describes as "female". However, this is with nonfunctional Y-chromosomes. When I see the Man page it seems to accurately portray this in its header. "Sex differentiation of the male fetus is governed by the SRY gene on the Y chromosome."

This includes the SRY gene, which the handbook also mentions. Henceforth I propose a new edit. This being the following:

Universally, women lack Y chromosomes with the SRY gene.

Or something to that variety. The article Man has something similar, and this would be a double-standard if it wasn't added. As to this being "contentious", I've seen time and time again wiki articles host headers with dogmas on contentious claims. All of which have a clear PostModern bias. My statement doesn't discount those with Turner's syndrome, and validates it. Though it makes a clear, objective distinction. Based on a handbook backed by empirical research. I do not see how it can be deemed as unreliable or iffy. It is a 2017 edition, and is far more recent than many of the sources on this page.

In addition to this, I do not believe Newimpartial is in good faith. They seem to have a clear bias, and are adamant on undoing such things with a conviction and broken logic. I ask for a third party of mediation to add to this topic.

I believe this section of information is critical information to the contentious topic, which will enlighten readers to new developments to the field, and the most recent scientific consensus. Wikipedia accepts dogma, and the dogma seems to lean on a code of reliable and recent sources. Which I believe this provides. Either this can be in the header, which I believe it should. Or in another section. I have provided a critical realist claim which intertwines modernism and post modernism. It validates those with non XX chromosomes, but also validates the idea that a Y-chromsome is critical, or the SRY gene for determining if a human is male or female.

Sedeanimu (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * When editing or discussing edits on Wikipedia, please remember to comment on content, not on contributors. Neither the gender of other editors, nor the political or philosophical views you presume of them based on it, is sufficient backing for the accusations of bad faith you've made against them. --Equivamp - talk 03:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The statement Universally, women lack Y chromosomes just isn't supported by your source, which is too technical to boil down to something so broad and sweeping. What does female phenotype and male phenotype mean in this context? The fact that the author included phenotype to clarify implies that they are acknowledging that this is not the only way male and female are defined. If you want to make such a sweeping statement in the lead, you need a source that says something along those lines unambiguously, or you need things in the body that are clearly summarized that way. I'm not seeing that here (in fact it seems to contradict the article body.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. And I believe I agreed in my new version. Which I modified to saying they lack a Y chromosome with an SRY gene. I think it would, thus be better to modify the statement to simply say that the sex differentiation is determined by the presence of the SRY gene. I believe other portions of the text were excluded as I mediated over it. Namely there is a section named "Mammalian Sex Determination" Which has the quote, "A series of early embryonic sequential binary activating or inhibitory developmental processes in mammals determine whether anatomical development will result in a ma1e or a fema1e. Genes expressed at specific stage of development in relevant tissues initiate a sex determination pathway toward one sex or the other. The first decision is made by the presence or absence of a functional Y chromosome Thereafter, indifferent stages of the gonads and of the internal and external genital organs differentiate into those of the female or male gender." This is more concrete, it doesn't include "phenotype", and is more specific. So, rather, it would be better it include something like Man saying that, "The sex determination of a female is governed by the absence of a functional Y-Chrosomone". I think, furthermore, there should be a link to a new section called "DSD". As I read further, it describes in page 366, "Since SRY is located very close to the pseudoautosomal region 1 (PARl ), crossing-over outside PARt transfers the SRY region to the X chromosome and results in a male individual with an XX karyotype (XX male syndrome; OMIM 278850)."
 * Thus, I think it would be fine to lead to the statement that sex determination during fetal development follows by the absence or presence of as Y-chromosone, then have a section link as to clarify more nuance. I have also located a springer book on the subject, titled "Gender Dysphoria and Disorders of Sex Development: Progress in Care and Knowledge (Focus on Sexuality Research)" (ISBN: 1489996540). It has the claim of being "state of the art" and "comprehensive". This is just a suggestion. But yes, at the very least, I would propose to include something to the variety of a fact about sex determination in embryonic development, or fetal development, for a female as the Man page asserts. And maybe, if needed, I can add a section about DSD (Disorders of sexual development). Sedeanimu (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Editors are mainly concerned with the use of women as equivalent to "people with a female phenotype"—two groups which are not universally congruent. The lack of an SRY gene typically causes the formation of female sex characteristics, and people with female sex characteristics typically go on to identify as women, but (given the existence of intersex disorders and transgender identity), there are notable exceptions. Being Universally True requires that no counterexamples exist, while this article documents several. Even if the Passarge source said something to this effect (it does not), it's a sweeping generalization which is unfit for the encyclopedia. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 02:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I addressed a lot of the points, I believe, in my (talk) post and modified my original public edit to fit a more objective fact that aligns with the source I used. The SRY-gene definition includes those with X0, XX, XXX, XXXXXXXXX(...), and XY females. No such counter examples exist whatsoever from the sources. ANd looking at intersex, my sources seem to address the table I see in one of the sections. And the book quotes dont say female phenotype, not every quote, they simply say female and male. Another article talks about this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2725752/
 * I could also edit "Universally, Sex determination of an adult female in the embryonic stages of development, compared to a male is its lack of an SRY-gene". This is basically concrete, and I see NOTHING whatsoever to undermine this statement. In the color atlas of genetics, and in the article linked. I could also, like I said, add a link redirect to a new section "DSD", which I think would be cool to add. The DSD would add a deep level of nuance, and invites the reader to see why I only mentioned the SRY-gene, and I specifically mentioned embryonic development. What I said seems to be factual, and also aligns with a similar vocabulary found in the man article. People with intersex, will have this SRY-gene characteristic apply. Sedeanimu (talk) 03:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologize: I carelessly skimmed past the part of your previous message where your changed your suggestion away from "Universally, women lack Y chromosomes with the SRY gene". I don't see a major issue with addressing the SRY gene's role in sex-differentiation at ; my only concern is the use of over-generalizing language which excludes trans and intersex people. I don't think it's overly relevant for inclusion in the lede.
 * Regarding intersex conditions, this review seems to make reference to at least SRY-negative person with XX male syndrome, demonstrating that it may still be possible (if only by highly uncommon mutations) to develop a typically male phenotype without the SRY gene. I don't have access to the sources being cited, and I don't particularly aim to die on this hill, so I'll let it be.
 * The other content you're proposing, regarding Disorders of sex development is probably beyond the scope of this article, which only treats the Biology material in summary, while branching off into Sexual differentiation in humans. If you wanted to contribute more information about sex determination (a subject you're clearly knowledgeable about), I'd consider drafting a new section there instead. Best wishes, RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 05:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A SRY-negative person with XX male syndrome isn't the only way that this over-generalisation is incorrect. Androgen insensitivity syndrome is another such condition, where an individual can have both an XY chromosome pair and a fully functioning SRY gene, but due to the inability of the cells to respond to androgens develops with varying degrees of feminisation. See: Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, Mild androgen insensitivity syndrome, and Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome.
 * While an argument can be made that this, and other disorders of sex development are rare, their presence I believe would prevent us stating Universally. Leaving aside momentarily a discussion on how offensive this phrasing could be, wording like Typically or Ordinarily would let us generalise without losing too much accuracy. Then later in the paragraph/section (not sure if this is a paragraph or section) the non-typical cases can be stated, illuding to why we cannot say Universally. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * I will accept the SRY-negative person with XX male syndrome as a counterpoint, however the syndromes you addressed do not seem to be linked with sex determination. Usually sex-determination occurs within the embryonic stages of development, where a person must develop a semblance of testis to differentiate from a female. And the article you linked seem to only refer to "undermasculization" of XY [males], which is dependent of the sex categories: male and female. It says, "Androgen insensitivity syndrome is the largest single entity that leads to 46, XY undermasculinization." And that their gonads are testes, "The gonads in these women are not ovaries, but instead, are testes; during the embryonic stage of development, testes form in an androgen-independent process that occurs due to the influence of the SRY gene on the Y chromosome." The only case to be made is that the quote says theyre women, which I dont know if this was the problem with the person who edited the article, or maybe the source also refered to them as women. Though, medically, genetically, it would probably male. The article bounces from refering to them as "women", "individuals", and "persons". And for "female", at best it only says they're "phenotypically female".
 * I will, again, accept the SRY-negative case. But, it seems this is the one reasonable exception for the debate. As all individuals with the SRY-gene seem to develop a form of testes in the embryonic stage of human development. As I keep reading about this topic, it seems clear about this: there are two sexes for humans in sex-determination. This is female, and male. And these two sexes, for the most part, have a XY or XX model. Then there are outliers, in which these textbooks, nonetheless, describe as female or male. And these outliers difference is that they are chromosomally different, but are close to their XX female, or XY male, counter part. So it seems (I actually feel very sure, but I can be wrong), even intersex is described on these two categories. The SRY-gene then determines which bar the outliers, those with DSD, are on. Except for 20% of people with XX-male syndrome. For females, even including the male syndrome, they lack an SRY-gene. For males, including the XX-male syndrome, I have no clue. 2601:204:4001:5930:A9F5:3855:B214:5115 (talk) Sedeanimu (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We should respect WP:DUE here. I fully support slightly less stronger words such as 'typically,' or 'usually,' or 'normally,' as is currently used in the genetics section. I don't think this statement has to be with universal qualifier, but without a universal qualifier it seems reasonable. Theheezy (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll agree to that. It is honestly better- and I think I became to fixated with adding the word "universally". I've seen articles with similar statements and they lack "Universally"- infact Ive hardly seen articles with words like "universally" "absolutely", apart from math ones. So I will modify it to be the one without the wording.
 * So, overall, I think this is a good proposal.
 * Now @RoxySaunders, I will also address parts of disagreement and my thoughts from your reply. For the article you linked, I will concede to that. Honestly, that is surprising. Ill take your word for now. I will concede as it may be possible given XX-male syndrome is incredibly rare in itself, so studies might always be outdated. And new ones may come out finding at least 1 person delineating from common notions. I found an article I was about to send: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1084952107000468?via%3Dihub. It goes into how crucial the SRY-gene is in sex differentiation in mammals. But it was published in 2007, the same year yours was published.
 * However, I intend to basically copy the header from the Man page which states, "Sex differentiation of the male fetus is governed by the SRY gene on the Y chromosome" in its first paragraph. With the language changed to fit the female side of things. So I dont think it would contradict your article.
 * I agree with your comment on DSD, I had similar thoughts. As to your suggestion to adding to the article, I might take you up on that offer if I muster the time and energy. I have actually enjoyed researching this topic thus far, so I think that would be cool.
 * As, also, I looked at the edit war rules, I will wait for a response from NewImpartial. To restate my proposal: it would be to add a qualifier similar to "Sex differentiation of the male fetus is governed by the SRY gene on the Y chromosome" I am not concerned on how the sentence is worded, feel free to modify it, but mentioning a similar testament is what I propose doing, overall. As my original edit was completely undone, I ask that something similar to the statement is brought back.
 * Sedeanimu (talk) 05:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing a relevant argument to include this detail of genetics in the lead of this article - an article that is not particularly centered in genetics. Newimpartial (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Intersex women
The article says "intersex women may have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology" (emphasis added). Does it make sense to be saying "may" here? Can a woman whose sex characteristics all "fit typical notions of female biology" be intersex, or does being an intersex woman require having some characteristics which are atypical? (If "may" were further along in the sentence, "intersex women have sex characteristics that may not fit typical notions of female biology", it would be less odd.) -sche (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * From what I can tell, Intersex is defined by the presence of "sex characteristics... that do not fit typical binary notions of male or female bodies." Verifying with the WP:RS on this, it does not specify whether the sex characteristics are secondary or primary. Thus, it seems that WP:RS leaves open the door to secondary sex characteristics as determining Intersex. Does an extremely tall woman (say 6 sigma or higher) classify as intersex, if she has typical notions of female biology?
 * Leaving that conundrum aside, Müllerian agenesis, a type of Disorders of sex development are capable of producing ovum, but typically infertile. The capability to produce ovum is, to me, certainly is sufficient (but perhaps not necessary) to be considered a Female organism. I would prefer leaving as is, unless you can find WP:MEDRS backing up this claim.
 * Of course, if other more experienced editors have a different view, I would take mine with a grain of salt. Theheezy (talk) 06:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Should this article be renamed "women and girls"?
The scope of this article is unclear. The lead definition defines "woman" as an "adult female human", but the rest of the article is mostly applicable to female humans in general. To keep the scope of this article clear, it should be specified that it is not only about adults. Since articles with a conjunction in the title are generally plural, the title would be "women and girls", not "woman and girl" or "woman or girl".

I also think the plural form is better. Articles about women, like women's studies, women's rights, women in North America, women in the Bible, Black women, and refugee women, overwhelmingly use the plural form. More generally, articles about broad groups of people, like Americans, typically have a plural title.

The category Category:Women is in plural form as well, and incidentally, the description of that category is confused about the scope of this article as well, since it mentions both Woman and Girl even though this article largely covers both.

It is appropriate for an article to have a full name, and sub-articles to have a short version. For example, back when COVID-19 was titled "Coronavirus disease 2019", sub-articles like COVID-19 in the United States used the abbreviation. Similarly, this article would be "women and girls", while sub-articles continue to use the shorter form "women".

The article "girl" stays as it is, because female children face specific types of discrimination, so the "girl" article is notable on its own. The article "man" should be renamed "men and boys", but I'm unsure if the "boy" article has sufficient notability to exist on its own, or if it should be merged into "men and boys". PBZE (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your premise, most of the article is specifically about women, not women and girls.  Of course there are some areas that are applicable to both e.g. in the biology section, but there's really not much in the 'Girls' article on biology so it's not doing any harm as it is.   I do agree that 'Women' would be better than 'Woman'. JeffUK (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Source for terminology of "Trans Women" and "Intersex Women" Failed verification
The reference https://www.wpath.org/media/cms/Documents/SOC%20v7/SOC%20V7_English2012.pdf does not support the definition of 'trans women' or 'intersex women', in the terminology section specifically, because that phrase is not mentioned in the source in connection with the word 'women'.

As it stands, I believe the line in the lead should be removed on the basis that information in the lead needs to be well sourced. I'm not doing that right now because I think better sources can be found and deleting it will be controversial JeffUK (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The claims themselves are factually verified by WPATH's definitions of transgender and intersex. Namely, that "The gender identity of transgender people differs to varying degrees from the sex they were assigned at birth" (97), and that intersexuality is "Congenital conditions in which the development of chromosomal, gonadal, or anatomic sex is atypical" (95).
 * You're right that it the source doesn't specifically define the phrase trans woman in the exact terms used here—WPATH mainly uses "MtF patients", meaning all people seeking trans-feminizing care regardless of gender. Since there seems to be WP:ONUS I mean WP:BURDEN, I've added a citation to the Harvard Medical School source from Talk:Trans woman/Definitions, which specifically supports defining transgender woman in this way. There's a few others there which also warrant a look. Best wishes RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 18:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a particularly excellent source for the terminology section, thanks. JeffUK (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed change to definition of trans woman.
please state here why you feel as though this is an improvement to the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The way the sentence is written suggests a different definition of woman than stated in the beginning of the article. My edit also gives the insightful information that trans women are commonly referred to as women, despite not meeting the definition of this very article. It helps to disambiguate and differentiate the terms. Taramalan (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The definition at the top of the page is one definition for woman, but it is not the only one. Saying that trans women are not women as your proposal implies, is pretty problematic for the inherent transphobia and transmisogyny. Personally I would be in favour of amending the definition at the top of the page, as it is unnecessarily restrictive and not representative of all of the accepted definitions of woman, however that is likely a discussion for a different section. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you think that way, you should write a different definition for woman. This is the wikipedia article for "Woman". A definition for "woman" is given. Under these presuppositions, it is perfectly legitimate to write what I wrote. If you have a problem with the content added by my edit, you inherently have a problem with that article and/or the given definition. Therefore I suggest you change the articles inherent structure rather than edits which are perfectly legitimate in the pre-established climate of the article itself. Taramalan (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * article's* Taramalan (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Taramalan, your (mis-)interpretation of Wikipedia article text is no substitute for a reliable source. The way you interpret "female" in the first sentence of this article - which you then applied by WP:SYNTH to the passage about trans women - conflicts with the way many sources use "woman" and "female", namely, to refer to gender. Please refrain from editing to push a specific WP:POV. Newimpartial (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Taramalan, we're not doing that. Asserting that there is a contradiction is not helpful at all and could even backfire. We're obviously not going to assert that trans women are not women as that is extremely inflammatory and politically biased and out of step with reliable sources on the topic. I recommend you drop this. Crossroads -talk- 04:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of articles (1, 2) by Tomas Bogardus that are not quite so inflammatory and politically biased as most of the discussion in this topic area...  Tewdar   09:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Bogardus is a religious philosopher. His reframing of "trans women != women" talking points as merely the dispassionate and rigorous application of epistemology (notably, in support of his preconceived conclusions regarding gender essentialism) is arguably less "inflammatory" (and therefore, more worthy of WEIGHT) than the more polemic and explicitly bigoted forms of this discussion. Nonetheless, I'd be very hesitant to call his work "unbiased". RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 17:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Talk:Trans woman/Definitions has a list of reliable sources giving their definition of "trans(gender) woman". Saying although they are not women, they are usually referred to as such is a significant and untenable departure from reliable sources. Endwise (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, by my count only 6 (or perhaps 7) out of 37 of those sources literally say "a transwoman trans woman is a woman", as opposed to "identifies as a woman" or whatever. Not that those sources on that page are particularly representative, mind you.  Tewdar   18:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Certainly none of the sources say anything to the opposite effect (a trans woman is not a woman but..."), and none could reasonably be construed as supporting a such blatantly POV addition. What do you consider a "representative" source on the matter? As an aside, please see Wiktionary's usage notes for vs. "transwoman". The latter may carry connotations which you don't intend. Regards, RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 20:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't claiming this suports whatever Taramalan was trying to add, which I haven't looked at and could very well be provocative nonsense for all I know. A more "representative" sample would probably actually contain more "a trans woman is a woman" type definitions, at least the more modern sources. Finally, thanks for pointing that out, I made a mistake.  Tewdar   06:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You're not gonna get a consensus for the changes you want to make. All you're doing is wasting your time & putting yourself in danger of getting a topic-ban. GoodDay (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding more talk page headers?
I noticed that some other controversial pages on Wikipedia have additional disclaimers on the talk page. Specifically on Talk:Trans woman we have:

on Talk:Transgender we have:

Is everyone okay with adding one of these to this talk page. It would help quite a bit with the discussion on this talk page. I think it's justified, especially since Woman is certainly featured on WP:List_of_controversial_issues. Personally, I prefer Round in circles header as we can appropriately link to the correct discussions which are archived. This should help editors frame their thoughts in context of what has already been discussed and established as consensus. If no one objects, I am happy to do this.Theheezy (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Theheezy, do you think those banners really make much difference? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think they're hurting anything at the moment. We should wait and see to see if they have a noticeable effect. I really hope everyone can start pointing to them in discussions when the same arguments get repeated, as the current content, to me, is adequately WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Theheezy (talk) 06:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't remember the last time I saw someone point as such banners – it's certainly been years – and I don't ever remember it doing any good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I got the idea from reading talk pages for Trans woman where it was added in the last year or so according to the talk page history. Hopefully, it helps reinforce the consensus achieved on this page, which I realize that most people are unhappy about. Most people being unhappy is, I think, preferred as it means that compromises were made on everyone's perspective to achieve NPOV.
 * I don't think it's doing any harm *shrug*. I think it has some benefit given that it gives editors on this page a simple and stress free choice to not engage with the same arguments which are repeated ad nauseum. Personally, I just ignore the arguments if its been brought up before unless I see something truly new not mentioned earlier. If the argument dies down on its own, all good... if it ends up boiling over to what seems like WP:CON, I mention whether it has been argued before and why those arguments were decided against by past editors.
 * My goal in adding this header is to give a voice and weight to the editors who have given up long ago in moderating or improving this article. This topic can be toxic and stressful to engage with, which is why so many editors have stopped bothering. However, their ideas and arguments continue to be sound and I haven't really seen any major shift in WP:RS on this topic since then. Hopefully this clarifies my position. Theheezy (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The official policy is that Consensus can change, so we probably shouldn't have anything (on any page) whose primary purpose is to reinforce the consensus achieved in the past.
 * Adding a bunch of stuff at the top of the page makes it less likely that anything will be read. Banner blindness and TL;DR are real challenges.  Or, as I usually say, Nobody reads the directions, so there is relatively little point in adding anything, and everything we add makes the existing content less useful.  In practical terms, if you add "We're tired of re-hashing these subjects", people will be less likely to read "Special ArbCom enforcement rules" or "This page isn't an internet forum for anyone who has opinions about women".  Because so much is at the top now (it's two full screens on my laptop), people will be much less likely to see the discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed consensus can change, and WP:LCI asks for additional care on controversial topics. The last 6-7 pages of talk archives haven't yielded any productive consensus changes, but instead has been lots of flaming and unproductive discussion. I prefer not to WP:LAWYER this.
 * If other editors find the banner unproductive and unhelpful, we should remove it. If other editors find it has merit, we should keep it. I think it's unwise to make this decision between just the two of us. If other editors can offer their opinions, that's best. Theheezy (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

"Reproductive rights"
Why is the one sided "reproductive rights" label stand at tge top of this article, what relation does a picture qbput eugenics have to the topic, and wgy exactly is tjis even a segment in a wikipedia article about women? Also, seems the WHO is the only main source of this (explaining why it looks more like a bad opinion piece). I coukd just as well copy-paste or summarize a pro life website's home page and put it under "fetus rights" in the wikipedia articles about "baby", "fetus", and even "pregnancy". 45.80.90.99 (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * This section exists because of WP:DUE, that is, it is often talked about by sources. It is WP:VERIFIABLE and mentioned in WP:RS.
 * You're welcome to create a page on Fetus Rights or append said information to other pages given that it meets the same standards of quality, specifically WP:DUE and WP:RS. Although I don't believe that belongs here as the topic of this page is Woman. Theheezy (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * According to WP:DUE, I do believe that reproductive rights should not be mentioned in the lede. The article is on woman, which is a very wide topic (at least including nature, philosophy, religion, society). Reproductive rights can be discussed under a section that discusses the rights of women as members of a society. Lightest (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)