Talk:Woman/Archive 23

Propose adding word "typically" to lede
A woman is typically an adult female human.

UPDATE (alternative proposal based on sources below): "A woman is an adult female human, typically characterized by one or more of the categories of biology, anatomy, genetics, gender expression, and/or gender identity" — Preceding unsigned comment added by The void century (talk • contribs) 01:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

This would make the article much more in line with WP:NPOV. WP is not a medical dictionary as the lede is currently based on. WP is an encyclopedia that should take into account all academic disciplines, legal and cultural developments. Adding the word "typically" will make clear that there is more nuance to the definition of "woman" than just biological sex, and will make this article more in line with articles like Gender, Sex and Gender Distinction, and Gender Identity. The article shouldn't give WP:UNDUE to those concepts, but it should consider those concepts as part of the modern concept of "woman". This lines up with the trend toward inclusivity in english language dictionaries, such as Merriam Webster"s primary definition of "Man": "an individual human; especially : an adult male human". Note the word "especially" in that definition. It also lines up with the global trend to distinguish between gender and biological sex, supported by major health organizations such as WHO. There are many more references supporting this definition in the ledes of the linked articles. This is a small change and a compromise that will make it less likely for people to keep reopening this discussion. The void century (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * See my comment immediately afore. I think Merriam-Webster has confused you slightly. The word man is sometimes used as a (purportedly) gender-neutral term meaning human, especially in words like mankind, "one small step for man", etc. hence "especially a male human". Woman (at least in the most literal sense) does not have such a sense; it always means "a female [as in female-gendered] human". If you can find any sources which define woman using this exact phrase (typically an adult female human) that would help your case. I oppose adding typically. Regards, RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 19:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it standard to directly quote dictionaries on wikipedia ledes? I haven't seen that before so I'm curious if there is a rule I'm unaware of. The void century (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also I don't think I was confused by Merriam-Webster. Check out this article where the lexicographer talked about the wording of those definitions. https://slate.com/human-interest/2017/09/why-a-controversial-definition-of-the-word-woman-doesnt-necessarily-mean-the-dictionary-is-sexist.html The void century (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess she's talking about adding the word "typically" to the definition of "male", not "man" in the article I linked, so maybe the real issue here is that the female article needs to be updated to have a more nuanced definition of female. The void century (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * (Re 1) Perhaps using this exact phrasing isn't quite what I meant. Rather, if you can point to any sources which treat this term with the same kind of fuzziness. If Merriam-Webster (or other prominent publications considered reliable defining woman) adds a "typically" to their definition of woman, it would greatly benefit a proposal like this. Sources lead, Wikipedia follows.
 * (Re 2) I see how especially an adult male human could imply sex-inclusivity in Emily Brewster's view, but I'm doubtful this was the primary intention. I still think a definition like typically a female [sexed] human creates a greater divide between "typical" cis women vs. "atypical" trans/intersex woman, as opposed to properly contextualizing female as the name of a gender identity (which it is).
 * (Re 3) Worth noting that the article Female does currently include the caveat that In humans, the word female can also be used to refer to gender. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 20:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I hear you. I found an article from the Chicago Journal of International Law focusing on how women are defined in the CEDAW international treaty. They lay out that "“woman” as used in CEDAW means all of the above: biological, anatomical, genetic, gender performance, and/or gender identity— meaning any of the listed categories standing alone would be sufficient as would a combination of two or more categories." That seems a bit verbose for a lede on this page, but it makes clear that woman can mean many things in common speech and legally. The void century (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Dept of Justice of Canada defines women as "All people who identify as women, whether they are cisgender or transgender women." The void century (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * NYC amended its discrimination law to be more inclusive: "The City’s intent in amending the law was to make explicit that the law prohibits discrimination against people based on gender identity." The void century (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's "Feminist Perspectives on Sex and Gender": "This illustrated that gender metaphysics — or what it is to be a woman or a man or a genderqueer person — is still very much a live issue. And although contemporary feminist philosophical debates have questioned some of the tenets and details of the original 1960s sex/gender distinction, most still hold onto the view that gender is about social factors and that it is (in some sense) distinct from biological sex. The jury is still out on what the best, the most useful, or (even) the correct definition of gender is." This article also reviews the concept of "different arrangements of features in different individuals" from the CEDAW article above, but doesn't specifically endorse that perspective. The void century (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @RoxySaunders Based on those sources, would you accept something more expansive like this? "A woman is an adult female human, typically characterized by a combination of biology, anatomy, genetics, gender performance, and/or gender identity." I am open to copy edits. The void century (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Both sources are interesting, and as WhatamIdoing suggested below, a well-researched discussion of the surrounding definition discourse seems due in the Terminology section. But you will probably need more authoritative ones, in greater number, in order to change the first sentence. I'd personally be quite happy to take a radical pen to the definition and right great wrongs, but I cannot say the same for all contributors to this topic area. Don't mistake this for me arguing in favor of the status quo, but this is a perennial discussion, and we're all really sick to death of it.
 * The bar is astronomically high for demonstrating that the concise, mainstream definition of this term has changed, especially to the satisfaction of editors coming at this topic from different POVs. You might have a more fruitful time travelling to Massachusetts or Oxford to bribe or extort a dictionary editor (my lawyers have asked me to discourage you from attempting this) than you would trying to squeeze consensus from this particular turnip.
 * By the way, if you want to add more to a comment you've already published, and no one has yet responded to it, you can edit your own comment. That might make the thread a little easier to follow. See for more details. Best wishes, RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 02:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If such a list is added, it should include Gender role.
 * It might be helpful to readers if we organized this long list into two categories:
 * biological sex (or Sex assignment): anatomy, hormones, genetics
 * gender: expression, identity, role.
 * I'll echo Roxy by saying that it might be both better and easier to focus on getting this clearly stated in the body before trying to change the first sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In re "properly contextualizing female as the name of a gender identity (which it is)":
 * Different cultures and even different situations hold different opinions on this. The idea that gender identity could be more important than biology is a new one in Western cultures, and in some non-Western cultures, respect for gender identity has historically been strictly unidirectional (AMABs could become women, but AFABs were always women).
 * There are different valid(!) definitions of woman. Sometimes the relevant definition is "human perceived to be a woman" (e.g., by a perpetrator of sexual harassment).  Sometimes the relevant definition is "human who could get pregnant" (e.g., if a law or safety rule specifies that "pregnant women" should receive a specific protection, then we want that to apply to everyone who is pregnant, and not exclude people who are non-binary or trans masculine).  Sometimes the relevant definition is biological.  Sometimes the relevant definition is cultural.  Sometimes it's individual and personal.
 * I think we need to address the existing diversity of definitions directly. While it probably won't stop arguments over the all-important first sentence, it might actually educate people who read past that point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is WP:UNDUE. Mainstream dictionaries, from the everyday to the scholarly and historical, agree with the current definition, as do other sources. The complaints I've seen have largely been attempts to leverage a particular tendentious understanding in order to delete the lead's later reference to trans women, and none of the objections I can recall has been from an experienced regular editor. As noted, there is an asymmetry between how dictionaries define 'man' and 'woman' because the former is sometimes used to mean "humankind". The proper comparator is how that dictionary defines 'woman', which essentially matches ours: Crossroads -talk- 04:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Relying entirely on dictionary definitions for the lede to woman is WP:UNDUE and having experience as an editor doesn't make you an expert on any one subject. This proposal is obviously not trying to remove any lines about trans women. Dictionaries are institutions of their own with spotty histories when it comes to social change. Even so, Merriem-Webster uses the word "typically" in its primary definition of female and also has a secondary definition: "having a gender identity that is the opposite of male". The issue is that Wikipedia devotes female article entirely to biological sex. If you go to the disambiguation page for female on wikipedia, there is a link to woman. So the lede to woman could theoretically begin "Woman (also known as Female)"  like other articles that have multiple possible titles. The fact of the matter is that the lede is currently WP:UNDUE in the weight it gives to biological sex. The void century (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also see my other suggestions here The void century (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll also add, WP:UNDUE is not the only quality in a WP:NEUTRAL article. There is also WP:BALANCE. Gender links to this article in its lead paragraph when referring to the gender binary. I think that's a pretty clear indicator that this article is intended to be about female gender. Clarifying that and giving WP:BALANCE by providing a gender-based lede is not WP:UNDUE. Gender article opens very clearly: "Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to femininity and masculinity and differentiating between them. Depending on the context, this may include sex-based social structures (i.e. gender roles) and gender identity." If the lede in Gender includes a line about both Sex and Gender Identity, then this article should too. Sex and Gender Identity are not mutually exclusive paradigms. Including one doesn't unbalance the other. The void century (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * a very familiar line of argumentation at this point, but deeply US-centric unfortunately, it's really not as clear cut as some would have us believe. Acousmana 16:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE states "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." The reliable sources on this are generally in agreement worldwide: To define what it is to be a woman, one must consider both gender roles and gender identity. That's why the gender article does exactly that in its lede. The void century (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * there is a particular line of argumentation that is prominent right now, but there is no global concensus, as such, just yet, so us lending undue weight to, for instance, Meyer's article, is not the right step at this juncture and would certainly be premature. Ac<b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 17:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you think there is no global consensus, then provide the preponderance of reliable sources that make your case. From my perspective, the vast majority of reliable sources currently cited on wikipedia and elsewhere are in agreement that the female gender, i.e. what is described in woman/girl, is, depending on the context, a word that evokes "sex-based social structures (i.e. gender roles) and gender identity.". That's how the gender article describes it, as well as practically every article relating to gender on wikipedia (with the exception of fringe articles). The void century (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * if you can demonstrate that a global consensus exists for the definition you propose above, what's the problem? Have you considered an RFC on the matter? <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 18:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am trying to read the room first by discussing this among editors who are actively involved in the page. Once I have an idea of what might be an acceptable change, I will open an RFC. For example, it seems like a few editors would be open to unlinking the lede from the female article and then adding the line "For biological sex, see female". That would allow keeping the lede copy as is while clarifying that "female" isn't narrowly referring to biological sex in the lede. The void century (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * sorry to ask, but is this your only Wikipedia account? or do you edit more broadly using an alternate account? <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 18:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * this is my only account The void century (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I supported unlinking female last time it came up (can't remember when), and I still support the move. If there were a section of the target article discussing "female" as gender, I'd suggest a section link. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

arbitrary break 1

 * Tvc, as said, this has been discussed ad nauseam and it is very difficult to change. Which doesn't mean impossible, and doesn't mean you shouldn't try, but it's good to be aware of the history. To give some perspective: the article "Woman" was created in May 2001 by Larry Sanger (one of the co-founders of Wikipedia) when he started it off with the definition "An adult, female human being". Since then, there have been over 4,000 edits to the article by 1,800 editors, and there are 642 editors watching the article. In addition, as  mentioned (echoing WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY), it's a better approach to work on an expanded definition with all the nuance and detail needed in ithe body of the article (which likely might not work as a summary in the WP:LEAD, let alone the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE), before moving on to the lead. Different dictionaries and other sources will have different definitions, and the fact that there is disagreement among sources may also be part of the story, which can also be told in the body (as long as the disunity is itself discussed in sources), and if so, alluded to in the lead (perhaps in the fourth paragraph). But just be aware of the history, and that jumping into ideas about changing the first sentence of an article that has a lot of history, not to say controversy, may be difficult.
 * I applaud your approach to "trying to read the room" is a good one, but as the page has a long history, it doesn't go far enough: in particular, don't limit it to who is around "lately". Eevery aspect of this has been talked about before, often many times, and if you want to have a decent chance at actually changing the lede, then you need to familiarize yourself with the Archives (see those numeric links in the box at the top of the page?). Here is just a smattering of links to previous conversations that have all proposed or discussed the word typically in the lede:
 * Archive 7 : "typically capable of giving birth..."
 * Archive 14 : a long conversation, with a couple dozen proposals to add typically to the lede
 * Archive 15 : ""Typically, a woman has two X chromosomes..."
 * Archive 18 : "Typically, women" vs. "Biological women"
 * Take some time to read through those, but that is just the tip of the iceberg, so a deeper dive would be better. You'll come back better informed, and also, I hope, with a deeper appreciation of how your proposal may fit in with previous discussions. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Re: characterized by one or more of the categories of biology, anatomy, genetics, gender expression, and/or gender identity - this proposed phrase is accurate enough, and I believe it would easily be substantiated by reliable sources. (It is also certainly better than your earlier proposals, void century, relating to "femininity", which strictly relates only to gender expression out of all of these concepts.)
 * However, I am not convinced that it is either close to comprehensive or balanced. Gender, for example, cannot be reduced to gender expression and gender identity - it also prominently includes gender roles and norms, gender stereotypes and other non-subjective aspects of gender. On the flip side, identifying biology, anatomy and genetics as three aspects is also odd (what is "biology" in this context apart from anatomy and genetics?).
 * So from a logical standpoint, something like "biology (anatomy and genetics) and gender (including gender expression and gender identity)" would, I think, provide better balance and align better with the sources. The idea that the category "woman" never refers to biology, or that it never refers to gender, seems implausible in any contemporary context.
 * Note that I am not weighing in on "typically" itself, since I think that option is more of a red herring than anything else. Newimpartial (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @MathglotI had read through some of the previous discussions linked in the header, but I hadn't seen the previous proposed edits with the word "typically", so thank you for that. I agree with what's been said so far for the most part. @Newimpartial makes a good point that the list above could be condensed into "biology" and "gender" which would be broader. So perhaps it could be "A woman is an adult female human, characterized by biology and/or gender." That would have a similar effect to unlinking the lede from female. But first I will read through the archives a bit more to try to glean more ideas. The void century (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose "...characterized by biology and/or gender" for a couple of reasons: it's kind of empty and kicks the can down the road, and it fails WP:PRECISION in that the exact same wording could be used for Man, in which case it has almost no useful information to convey to the reader and could simply be omitted. Mathglot (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mathglot what about rewording to "A woman is an adult female human, characterized by female biology and/or gender." I was trying to avoid using the word "female" twice, but maybe adding it there would be more WP:PRECISE The void century (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to respond, because I think you've not sufficiently considered the points made previously about WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. That said, since you pinged me with a direct question, I'd say that was closer, but I find female biology a fuzzy expression that uses biology as a kind of vague stand-in for&mdash;what? anatomy? hormones? sexual characteristics? The expression does occur, even in scholarly articles, but I wonder what readers would take away from that expression? I'm guessing they would get "born with a vulva" from that, and it is also language occasionally used in discussions about trans women, which opens a can of worms, and do we want to leave that somewhat vague expression in the lead sentence and let readers wonder about it? When you say, female biology, what do you mean by it? What do you expect readers to understand by it? Mathglot (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Using the word "biology" instead of a more specific word is similar to using "female". It includes many examples of women and provides balance, as laid out by @Newimpartial above^^. For example, a transgender woman with sex-reassignment surgery has female biology, and someone who has undergone hormone treatments also has female biology. The phrase "biology and/or gender" is (or is attempting to be) an umbrella that includes all women. The void century (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a fuzzy statement without a clear meaning:
 * A trans woman has: female external anatomy, no internal female reproductive organs, no female gametes, male chromosomes ("XY"), and no internal female hormones. Saying "female biology" is vague and invites misunderstanding. That's why I asked what you understood by it and what you think users would understand by it. It is because of these complexities, that this ought to be worked out in the body of the article first, and then you can come back to this later. Mathglot (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree it would be productive to work on defining it in the body. It sounds like what you're suggesting for the [eventual] lede edit is similar to my alternate proposal in opening comment above^^^. But Newimpartial made the point that a phrase like "anatomy, genetics, and hormones" could be unbalanced in its own way as opposed to an umbrella term like "biology". I haven't done extensive digging through sources recently, but I suspect it would be easier to back up the "biology + gender" idea with reliable sources than it would be to pin down a specific list that encapsulates the biology of "woman". The void century (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say that the highlighted statement is wrong. A trans woman with sex-reassignment surgery has a surgical approximation of the appearance of female external genitalia (a vagina is not just a hole), which is not the same as female biology.  However, the comment unintentionally illustrates how poorly understood "female biology" is, and therefore it would be best to not introduce this term without an explanation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that sex-reassignment and hormonal therapy are semantic gray-area (whether they give someone female biology). I don't think it's definitively one way or the other. For example, surgically altered breasts may be an "approximation", but they are part of the human female phenotype and have some biological function in relation to social behavior. Breasts function in attracting mates, which is part of female biology. Biology is both internal and external. To my previous point, I was illustrating that the word "biology" intends to capture every possible case of female biology. For example. a woman without ovaries is still a woman. The void century (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Your last sentence reminds me of the eternal problem of context in definitions. In evolutionary biology, any organism that is unable to reproduce basically is part of the environment, and is as (ir)relevant to the evolutionists' interests as the sunlight, or as an organism that dies before reaching reproductive maturity, because they are unable to supply genetic material to the next generation.  Although they would be using male/female language, rather than man/woman language, organisms that don't reproduce would simply be dropped from the genetic calculations.  Are they wrong?  Not really.  It's just that most of us don't think of humans or other organisms as only mattering when they reproduce. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You're not entirely wrong, but it's not always the case that organisms that don't reproduce would simply be dropped from the genetic calculations. For example, see kin selection. Kin selection is one explanation of why human grandparents are part of the family structure and why humans have evolved to have an extended postmenopausal lifespan . I'll add that there are evolutionary explanations for why humans cooperate beyond the family structure, sometimes to the detriment of their own reproductive chances. See reciprocal altruism. Evolutionary biologists do their best to explain all behavior through the lens of natural selection, so I think it's wrong to say In evolutionary biology, any organism that is unable to reproduce basically is part of the environment, and is as (ir)relevant to the evolutionists. The void century (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think what you're going for would be female sex and/or gender. I'm not really a huge fan of that phrasing, though, because I think really the thing we ought to do is fix the definition on Female rather than this page. Loki (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah the problem is Female is a biological article, so it's not limited to humans and would be WP:UNDUE to give gender more prominence there. This article could be alternatively titled "Adult Female (Gender)", as implied in Female (disambiguation). At the very least, this should be the place where female gender is covered. The void century (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah the problem is Female is a biological article, so it's not limited to humans and would be WP:UNDUE to give gender more prominence there. This article could be alternatively titled "Adult Female (Gender)", as implied in Female (disambiguation). At the very least, this should be the place where female gender is covered. The void century (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

arbitrary break 2

 * There have been several arguments put forth in this chain. I'd like to respond to them with some precision.
 * Reputable dictionaries such as MW and OED not reliable sources.
 * Dictionaries can be secondary or tertiary sources. However even if they are serving as tertiary sources, their content highly agrees with consensus amongst secondary sources. This is especially so for reputable dictionaries. Furthermore, they also summarize how each word is used in everyday speech, i.e., the common usage and interpretation of a word. Thus I find it hard to argue that the consensus among secondary sources is somehow radically different from those given in reputable dictionaries. Note that this is among all secondary sources. I'm sure it's possible to find secondary sources which disagree, but again, we are trying to establish consensus with appropriate weight.
 * MW also uses "typically" in their primary definition.
 * I don't want to get really deep into Sentence diagram here, but my reading of the primary definition on MW for female is "(of, relating to, or being the sex) that typically has the capacity..." I think typically here is covering the case where females are infertile, not implying that females somehow can also mean the sex which produces small motile gametes.
 * Female as gender, not as sex
 * This is strongly in contrast to MOS:LEADNO. When more than 50% of the content is related to female as sex, not as gender, I find it hard to argue that in the lede we should emphasize gender and not sex. See Woman, Woman, Woman, Woman, Woman, Woman, Woman, Woman. Of course, as suggested by @Mathglot, one option is WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, I'm okay with this decision. One future issue that will come up is whether current and future additions with regards to female as gender meet due weight among reliable sources.
 * This is also the position I have with creating Female (gender) and linking to that instead of Female. I certainly encourage the creation of Female (gender) but linking to it in the lede sounds like MOS:LEADNO due to similar reasons.
 * Echoing the feedback of other editors, I also recommend reading through the archives. They're long so may be combined sometimes with whiskey, and sometimes with popcorn. I took the time to read, or at least skim through, all 20 pages before I felt confident enough to contribute my voice to the discussions here. Theheezy (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Re: When more than 50% of the content is related to female as sex, not as gender, I find it hard to argue that in the lede we should emphasize gender and not sex. While I for one am not suggesting that sex be excluded from the lead, in the body I count three major sections that are mostly about sex in some form and ten major sections that deal primarily with gender. While the "sex" related sections have more subsections, and some passages of the article deal with both aspects, it is still clearly not the case that "more than 50%" of the article content is related to sex, and not gender. Newimpartial (talk) 09:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To quote from my comment in talk:female:
 * I hear you that the lede of the woman page reflects the most common definition found in dictionaries. I agree that dictionaries are a reliable source for the common usage of a word, but they are not the only source and don't negate many decades of scholarship in fields like psychology, sociology, gender studies, etc. Nor do they negate social developments that have expanded the meaning of the word, such that major health organizations like WHO recognize the importance of both gender and biological sex.
 * In WP:UNDUE: "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Dictionaries, for the most part, represent common usage of a word, not necessarily the consensus among scholars and other reliable sources. The importance of gender is well established and accepted fact based on the sources cited in practically every article on wikipedia that cover gender-related topics, such as Gender, Sex and Gender Distinction, Gender Expression, Gender Identity. These articles are not WP:FRINGE theories, they are presented as fact, and so the question becomes, how much weight should Gender have in a lede of Woman? I think it should at least be made clear that the concept of Woman involves both biological sex and gender.
 * Re: the "more than 50% sex" comment. I agree with Newimpartial that's not the case, but I think the body could be organized better to make it clear that gender is often considered a a concept side by side with biology like sex and gender distinction article. Also this article probably doesn't need as much on biological sex because it's mostly rehashing what's already covered in female. The void century (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed that there is currently an entirely unjustifiable amount of redundant biological and health information to be found, between this article and Female. Newimpartial (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Female is mostly about non-humans, as it should be because most females are not humans but are other mammals, birds, lizards, insects, plants, protozoa, etc. And a large portion of sources about women are WP:MEDRS sources about female-sexed humans. An overview of that material belongs here. The overlap between female gender and female sex is immense (>99%). Just because sex and gender are distinct as concepts doesn't mean that they can be totally disconnected, the topic arbitrarily and UNDUE-ly divided and redefined as almost solely about gender, and readers beaten over the head with that POV. Crossroads -talk- 05:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Gender isn't anti-biology, but it is a distinct concept that deals with biology in specific ways, such as in relation to social structures. For example, I don't think anyone is arguing that childbirth or pregnancy are unimportant in an article about woman, but those are aspects of female biology with significance to female humans, and should be covered in relation to how they are significant to female humans.
 * But the way the article is currently worded is redundant. For example, much of the second lead paragraph could be condensed to "humans are placental mammals." And then we'd have extra space to talk about how women are unique among placental mammals.
 * There are key details missing on what makes humans/primates unique. For example, looking through woman, childbirth, human, primate, female, and mammalian reproduction, I don't see a single mention of the idea that humans/primates are unusual among mammals in that they mostly bear one offspring per birth. It's assumed that the reader already knows this. You'd have to find the section on humans in multiple birth, birth or twin articles to find this out, which aren't linked from woman. The void century (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose any movement or removal of the current content that I highlighted above.
 * More than 50% of the content is related to female as sex, not as gender
 * The sections I highlighted, by pure word count alone, makes up 33% of the content of the page. Please feel to verify yourself. As for the remaining sections, it is a WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that these sections are talking exclusively about female as gender, instead of female as sex. These two concepts highly overlap, thus it is the responsibility of the editors making this claim to provide justification.
 * The WP:BURDEN lies with the proposed changes.
 * As mentioned and highlighted before, I don't see any of the reliable sources being cited being able to trump the weight that can be ascribed to reputable English and medical dictionaries.
 * Theheezy (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to understand what you're saying.
 * 1. Are English dictionaries and/or medical dictionaries given greater weight on wikipedia than other fields of scholarship, in an article that includes multiple fields?
 * 2. If one must trump the weight that can be ascribed to reputable English and medical dictionaries, then please define that. How many reliable sources would I need, and from what types of sources? The void century (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Mathglot (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This article could be alternatively titled "Adult Female (Gender)"
 * Is this true? Should this be true?  Limiting the article to the woman-as-a-gender concept would limit its contents substantially.
 * If this is the goal for this article, where do we put the content about what basically everyone thought a woman was until the last half century? Where do we put the content about cultures that don't believe it's possible to separate biology and gender?  Mind–body dualism (the idea that psychology could be separated from the body) is an idea, not a definite fact, and it is not universally believed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but I think I agree with you. My point was more that Female (disambiguation) makes it seem like this article is intended as "Adult Female (Gender)". So probably this is where female gender should be covered. We could create another article titled "Female (Gender)", but that might confuse things more. The void century (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Now I haven't backed the major premise, here, but the concept of gender does not in any way depend on mind-body dualism, which is therefore a rather vibrant red herring. The concept of gender only depends on the concept of culture, not on a "separation" between the psyche and the body (which would indeed be a rather controversial thing on which to base any theoretical framework, much less one dealing with gender where no such separation has ever been promoted in quality sources). Newimpartial (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but I think I agree with you. My point was more that Female (disambiguation) makes it seem like this article is intended as "Adult Female (Gender)". So probably this is where female gender should be covered. We could create another article titled "Female (Gender)", but that might confuse things more. The void century (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Now I haven't backed the major premise, here, but the concept of gender does not in any way depend on mind-body dualism, which is therefore a rather vibrant red herring. The concept of gender only depends on the concept of culture, not on a "separation" between the psyche and the body (which would indeed be a rather controversial thing on which to base any theoretical framework, much less one dealing with gender where no such separation has ever been promoted in quality sources). Newimpartial (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I am finding your comment confusing, TheHeezy. Are you stating that the sections Woman, Woman, Woman, Woman refer exclusively to sex and not to gender? Because that seems WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Newimpartial (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not what I said, or implied at all. If you read my original post and followup post... I am merely stating that where the word female is used in the lede and in the content, it is referring to female as sex, or female as sex and gender, and not female as exclusively gender. Theheezy (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that there are no passages in this article where "female" refers to gender? That seems an obviously falsifiable statement; take for example, this passage in [|Science, literature and art]: Writing was generally also considered acceptable for upper-class women, although achieving success as a female writer in a male-dominated world could be very difficult; as a result of several women writers adopted a male pen name. The passage employs "female writer" in its usual sense to mean "writer of the female gender", rather than anything based on the "sex" side of the Sex and gender distinction. Newimpartial (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The WP:BURDEN is on you to show this is the case with citations. WP:NOTSOURCE. That specific sentence is talking about, e.g., George Sand and George Eliot, both writers who died in the 19th century before there was such a thing as gender separate from sex. Theheezy (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Theheezy, you are aware - aren't you ? - that the concept of "gender" is also applied to historical contexts? I don't know why you are citing Money, here, since the recent reliable sources on such female writers as George Eliot refer explicitly to the concept of "gender". And it has been thoroughly established in many different RS literatures that "female" is deliberately used for the social category of "gender" - as I say, it would be EXTRAORDINARY to suggest otherwise.
 * To give an unrelated example from a reliable source, rather than article text, this chapter clearly distinguishes "sex" from "gender", analytically, then uses "male" and "female" in both (clearly specified) contexts. Newimpartial (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

arbitrary break 3
Somewhere above I pointed out that Larry Sanger created this article in May 2001 (perma) when the first sentence read:

Twenty-one years and four thousand edits later, the first sentence has passed through many permutations, and now reads: "A woman is an adult female human", and as pointed out, that does pretty much agree with dictionary definitions. Maybe we should just leave well enough alone. Mathglot (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

updated by Mathglot (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * May 2001: An adult, female human being.
 * September 2002: An adult, female human.
 * May 2003: A woman is an adult female human being, as contrasted to an adult male, which is a man.
 * May 2004: A woman is an adult female human being, as contrasted to an adult male, which is a man.
 * May 2005: A woman is an adult female human being, as contrasted to a man, an adult male, and a girl, a female child.
 * May 2006: A woman is an adult female human, as contrasted with a man (an adult male), and a girl, (a female child).
 * May 2007: A woman is a female human.
 * May 2008: A woman is an adult female human being.
 * May 2009: A woman (irregular plural: women) is a female human.
 * May 2010: A woman (irregular plural: women) is a female human.
 * May 2011: A woman ( (woman); pl: women ) is a female human.
 * May 2012: A woman, pl: women is a female human.
 * May 2013: A woman, pl: women is a female human.
 * May 2014: A woman, pl: women is a female human.
 * May 2015: A woman is a female human.
 * May 2016: A woman is a female human.
 * May 2017: A woman is a female human.
 * May 2018: A woman is a female human being.
 * May 2019: A woman is a female human being.
 * May 2020: A woman is a female human being.
 * May 2021: A woman is an adult female human.
 * May 2022: A woman is an adult female human.
 * After wading through the above discussion, I have to agree with Mathglot. I may comment in more detail later, but it'll be difficult to say something meaningful that's not already been said several times by others (just in this version of this perennial discussion).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems like many editors (in the archives and here) feel malaise with the composition of this article, especially the lead, but nobody can solve the conundrum of how to fix that and maintain WP:NEUTRAL, so it's unchanged via gridlock. That doesn't mean it's well enough. Personally, I am afraid to touch the body of this article because I feel like anything I do without asking will be reverted, and if I ask here it will probably initiate another lengthy conversation. I don't have enough time to do that for every problematic sentence, which is why I'm focusing on the lede, as that's the most important one. On more of a meta level, the problem seems to also be a disagreement over what is meant by WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and WP:NEUTRAL The void century (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Building a list of reliable sources on sex/gender distinction and importance of gender in relation to woman/adult female (sorry didn't have time to properly ref all of these). I am fairly certain I could compile hundreds of reliable sources with the same theme if I spent a few weeks on this. Again, I am confused as to why these types of sources have lower weight than a dictionary definition of woman. I feel like defining the term "woman" directly shouldn't be the only indicator of weight, when clearly there are many reliable sources on the importance of gender with woman.


 * The void century (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you plan on maintaining a long list of definitions that may grow or change over time, rather than constantly coming back here to expand it (or repeating the updated version again lower down) you might consider moving this to a Talk subpage and just linking to it from here (see Talk:Trans woman/Definitions, or Talk:Conversion therapy/Definitions for example). You could also slurp the subpage (or part of it) into a collapsed section, somewhat as you can see here. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I made the page correctly but I'm not sure how to do the slurp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Woman/Gender_source_list The void century (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's correct; slurp added above. Mathglot (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The big difference here from the Talk:Trans woman/Definitions list is that that is a list of definitions of one specific term. This appears to be a list of all sorts of different quotes related to how woman-ness has something to do with gender. But nobody is denying that, so this doesn't prove anything. This article talks a lot about gender. That doesn't change the fact that dictionaries, especially scholarly and scientific dictionaries, are useful for establishing the quick and simple definition we need for a first sentence. Crossroads -talk- 04:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you saying weight is decided by whatever source is the most useful for establishing the quick and simple definition? The lede of WP:NPOV states that Neutrality means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Sometimes dictionary definitions do that, and sometimes they don't.
 * All the topics in the current lede are important, but is this really a fair, proportionate and unbiased view of women? I feel like you could read through this and miss key concepts:
 * What differentiates women from placental mammals and/or apes?
 * Human child-rearing, social structures, culture, technology, intelligence, etc are fundamentally unique to humans, and gender encapsulates the unique elements of humankind relevant to women/girls and men/boys (as opposed to humans in general). Currently, the lead references some topics that relate to gender (after the long overview of biology), like Gender roles, Gender Identity, Gender Equality, Feminism, but it kind of tip-toes around the heart of the issue. Women are adult female humans, characterized by biology and/or gender.  There are many possible ways of phrasing that, but the fact is the lede currently omits gender as a concept and makes it sound like women can be reduced to biological females.
 * I disagree that this lede is clear about female meaning both sex and gender. The void century (talk) 06:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where the idea came from that this article needs to be clear about what female means; this is not the Female article. As long as it links to it, or perhaps gives a brief parenthetical definition or explanatory note, that should be more than enough. I wouldn't object to the addition of an explanatory note, although I don't see the need for it. Mathglot (talk) 06:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * the other issue in stating that women are adult female humans, characterized by biology and/or gender is that if one presupposes that gender is the set of socially constructed traits and behaviors traditionally associated with a particular sex, what then, with respect to being a woman, are these traits and behaviors? "feminine" behaviors? an intersection of gendered behaviors? something else? Is it even possible to address any of this in a single opening sentence without being prescriptive? It's a can of worms, and I think we are in the territory of WP:10YT so should leave well enough alone for now. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 16:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, since the set of socially constructed traits and behaviors traditionally associated with a particular sex is a fairly small subset of what "gender" denotes, it would certainly be unfortunate if a reader presupposes that this is all that the word means. Newimpartial (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, illustrating why it's important to compile reliable sources^^^. There's no requirement for us to be experts, but we should practice due diligence. The void century (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The following was inserted as a direct reply to the OP. I've WP:REFACTORed it here to keep threading mostly chronological. – RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 21:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Absolutely not. Skcin7 (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: Discussion has continued at Talk:Female and Articles for deletion/Female (gender). Crossroads -talk- 06:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for disappearing, I seriously felt an urge to touch grass after spending too long on this topic. Now I'm back with a more relaxed head and ready to contribute meaningfully.
 * I do see that discussion has moved elsewhere regarding this topic. I have read through these discussions, however I think we can made an addition here that can help move everyone towards some form of compromise and improve the quality of the page.
 * How about we encapsulate the references and RS that have been mentioned so far into a "Woman as gender" subsection, next to the Etymology or Terminology? I agree with @Newimpartial and @The void century that these are indeed reliable sources that focus on defining woman as primarily a gender, unrelated to reproductive function. I think this counts as a valid minority viewpoint, and there is certainly enough weight here to be deserving a mention. We can replace the current Trans woman blurb in the lede with something like, "Some organizations and communities espouse the view that woman is primarily defined as a gender based on ..."
 * Would this be a compromise that editors on this page be happy with? Can we please, in the spirit of Wikipedia, accept that as of this moment reliable sources need to sort this out themselves, and we cannot race ahead of them? Theheezy (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

References ("typically")
Merriam Webster, along with it's owner parent company Britannia Encyclopedia, in my opinion have shown extreme bias, and lean more towards opinionated statements. Shouldn't be sources.

Would recommend the Oxford English Dictionary.

13% of the globe speaks English. America doesn't own the laugauge. Thus it isn't up to them alone to change the meaning of a word. Consigiliere (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Clitoris
'''This unique gland is only found on the Human Female; WOMAN. ''' It has a singular purpose and is unique in the animal world. It can not be transplanted.

Unlike any male or female animal ... woman is truly unique. SHOULDN'T THE DEFINITION OF WOMAN REFLECT THIS UNIQUE QUALITY? Michael.housetrained (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No reliable sources treat the clitoris as definitional to womanhood, and so neither does Wikipedia. You may be surprised to learn that the clitoris is not an organ unique to human women, but is in fact found in all mammals (and also some non-mammals). The most interesting clitoris in nature is that of the spotted hyena. Hope this helps. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 05:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In "woman" it's a "singular" use gland solely designed to providing pleasure upon stimulation. Woman are the only animal that achieve orgasm through clitoral stimulation. This is unique! 210.50.62.179 (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2022
This article states an example of a plural use of the word "woman" is "women's rights". But if it were plural, you should change it. In conclusion: change "women's rights" to "womens' rights" 67.80.97.138 (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The plural of woman is women, not womens. ■ ∃ <b style="color:#C64600">Madeline</b> ⇔ ∃ <b style="color:#613583">Part of me</b> ; 08:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The introduction is overly focused on the biological meaning of women
Its strange to read an article on women and see "women have less body hair, wider hips and the SRY chromosome".

Setting aside the obvious trans and body image issues, why is this the introduction? The introduction should help introduce what is being talked about, not list random facts that are only half true.

Im not sure what could replace it, but it certainly shouldnt be this 219.90.169.129 (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You said, "list random facts that are only half true" and yet _every_ woman has the SRY chromosome.-2600:1702:170:3B90:9A1:5CF9:944E:1AB5 (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That isn't even half true. :) Newimpartial (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * As per WP:LEAD, as there is strong focus on sexual dimorphism in humans (specifically women) within the content of the article, it is the job of the lead to summarize the content of the article within the lead. Theheezy (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And, a large portion of the sources about the topic of women talk about these biological and medical aspects. Crossroads -talk- 20:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As the other comments point out, the lead section is meant to summarize the body of the article. As most of the article is written from a biological and medical perspective, rather than a social science perspective, the lead's focus on those aspects of women is perfectly appropriate. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Woman at Lover's Bridge Tanjung Sepat (cropped).jpg
 * This is the article's lead image, voted upon and improved. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)