Talk:Woman/Archive 26

Intersex section
Within the intersex section, it says a "typical female gender identity". There is no such thing as a typical gender identity. Gender is a social construct nothing typical about it. Identifying as a typical gender is not a typical thing to do. Gender identity is a very controversial subject and should not be included here as if it was not. *a cis woman growing a philosopher's beard MichelleGDyason 10:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * This is very confused and it is not clear what your argument actually is. Is it that we need to make it a bit clearer what is meant by "typical" in some places? If so, I think I agree.
 * Looking at that section more generally, I think the first paragraph is absolutely fine. The second one is somewhat confusing and, while I am not sure that it is saying anything incorrect, it is open to misinterpretation as it can be read as saying "These intersex conditions make you trans and these ones don't", which is incorrect and I'm pretty sure that that was not what was intended when it was written.


 * I don't know how to improve that paragraph to fix the framing and I'm very aware that it would be easy to unintentionally make it worse. Instead I'll make two specific suggestions:
 * I'd like the term "LGBT" to be replaced here because we are only talking about gender, not sexuality, in this section. We should not bring sexuality into it in passing. If we need to cover sexuality in this section then we should cover it properly but I don't think that we do. We have a whole other article in which to discuss all aspects of intersex related topics and that coverage belongs there.
 * Maybe it would be more correct to reword "show typical female gender identity" to "show typical rates of female gender identity", which is what I think the author intended to say in the first place.
 * I'm not sure how best to implement #1 but I think #2 is a simple minor improvement so I'm going to do that now. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Gender identity as a subject may attract controversy among editors on Wikipedia. However, I don't believe that independent reliable sources support the idea that the existence of gender identity itself is particularly controversial. Hist9600 (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * it's not a matter of what you believe. i can show reliable sources that say it is controversial.
 * gender identity is not something that everyone has nor does everyone agree gender identity can be something other than another social construct. Many people do not ascribe to the notion of gender identity being anything other than gender being reified into something essential, and gender is imposed, not chosen. to say someone shows typical gender identity is an oxymoron. *a cis woman growing a philosopher's beard MichelleGDyason 17:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am somewhat bemused by the idea that Wikipedia should simply decline to cover controversial topics, not least because pretty much everything is controversial to somebody and we would look pretty silly as an encyclopaedia if we didn't have any articles. Controversial topics have to be handled with care but they are not censored from coverage on Wikipedia.
 * The rest of the objections above are very unclear and even seem self-contradictory. I am not sure what relevance invoking the tiny (but valid) proportion of the population who have no gender identity (i.e. agender people) has here. Certainly there is nothing in the Intersex women section which seeks to impose a gender on them. In fact, they are not even mentioned in the Intersex women section at all because that is not what the Intersex women section is about.
 * I have already made an edit which resolves the specific ambiguous phrase complained about at the start of this thread and I'm not sure what else is being requested. I see no clear proposal and no WP:RS sources.
 * My advice is as follows. First, please take a look at WP:NOTFORUM to see what this Talk page is for and put away the soapbox. Think about whether there is a specific concrete proposal that you want to make. Then look at WP:RS to see what sorts of sources can and can not be used. See if there are valid sources that support the change that you want to make. If you believe that there are, then please propose the change as clearly and concisely as possible. The best way to do this is in a format saying "I propose that we change X to Y" so that we can understand exactly what you are proposing. Please provide any sources that you propose to use to support the new content and, optionally, a brief explanation of why you think the change would be an improvement. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I second the call for a specific concrete proposal.
 * I suggest also learning more about Social constructionism.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * i fail to understand your point. how am i evincing i do not understand social constructionism? i propose it is you who does not understand, but that might be because the Wikipedia page is in bad shape. *a cis woman growing a philosopher's beard MichelleGDyason 09:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * For example, you say that there is "nothing typical about" social construction. This is completely false.  The process of social construction is the process of society deciding what is typical. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I read "typical" as meaning, "statistically the most common", with no judgment applied. I second the questioning of the objections as being unclear. Finally, yes, yes, ,yes to Daniel R's suggestion. Feel free to use template Textdiff, if it makes the before–after display easier for you to apply. (It often makes it easier for readers to understand what it is you are proposing.) Mathglot (talk) 07:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ok, ok, and thank you. i will follow your very sound advice and propose my point more thoroughly and as clear as possible. but it will take me some time as i'm very busy with other things presently. Thanks for your patience *a cis woman growing a philosopher's beard MichelleGDyason 08:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Manual archiving
I have manually archived the long (231 comments!) section from the top of the page. The page size was so large that people using smartphones to edit would have had a lot of trouble participating. Please feel free to link to it (start here: Talk:Woman/Archive 25) or otherwise refer to any part of it that's useful, if you need to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I support this. Crossroads -talk- 22:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we should include the detailed definitional discussion part still, as that section is still ongoing. A Socialist   Trans Girl  08:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and done that. A Socialist   Trans Girl  08:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Reverted, that was going nowhere and is a pain to scroll past even on desktop. Archiving it was completely correct and it should not be brought back. Crossroads -talk- 21:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. You've inspired me to also manually archive the also-going-nowhere complaint about the lead image. -sche (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Converting chart for visually impaired
In §Fertility and family life we have this image; I'm requesting and hoping someone can convert this into a chart as described at MOS:DTAB? This would make the information accessible to visually impaired readers, and bring into compliance with MOS:ACCIM. Chart would also be more readily updatable, as contributors could edit it with simple text. Thank you. -- dsprc   [talk]  21:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree it would be good to present things in a more accessible format if possible. Can you link to an article that has a (non-image) chart of that sort so we can see what formatting is used to construct such a chart? MOS:DTT doesn't seem to have a bar graph among its examples. -sche (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Graphs are broken at the moment (read: "this year").  @PPelberg (WMF), could you put this on your list of use cases? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Reminder of footnote RfC at Talk:Man
This is a reminder for those with an interest in this article's lede that an ongoing RfC at from last March is still open, which could concern this article as well. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Accessibility
As we have a large number of images which are lacking detailed alt-text (MOS:ALT), visually impaired individuals are effectively locked out of access to information coveyed by this material. To ensure these individuals are not excluded from access to knowledge, it is requested that alt-text be applied to images within article.

Due to technical and physical limitations, I'm currently unable to effectively do so at this time. Thus, I ask the community to assist. Thank you. -- dsprc   [talk]  18:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)