Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:42, 29 April 2005

Misc Conversation

"In modern western society, few wear clothing generally associated with female gender roles." I thought this was so in all societies, not just western. Are there modern societies where the men cross dress? Jay 15:18, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The above quote should say "In modern western society, few men wear clothing generally associated with western female gender roles"

Why is does this page use the word "sex" not "gender"? --(talk to)BozMo 13:56, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

According to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary the word Gender means the grammatical classification of nouns into different sexes. Therefore Sex is the correct word to describe particular characteristics of men and women. Gender is often incorrectly used as a euphemism for the word sex. --Cap 18:35, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Errr... you might consider that use "incorrect", however it is definitely common, especially since a distinction between physical sex and gender (identity, role, presentation etc) is definitely needed. The fact that a dictionary (even an Oxford one) does not list a meaning does not mean that meaning of a word does not exist. This is particularly true if it is a "concise" dictionary. Even the OED, not particular up-to-date with words in that field (transgender does not exist there), lists that use, even if it labeles it as "modern" and "especially feminist". Oh well, nothing is perfect. Not even Oxford Dictionaries. -- AlexR 20:42, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

POV: "it is estimated that one in 100,000 people are men who have been born without a typical male physiology (that is, they are transgendered or transsexual men)," This is deceptive and misleading, non-intersex ftm transexuals are not born with any sort of male anatomy, typical or otherwise. It should be enough to say that some females consider themselves men and let the reader decide if they consider that to be valid, not preach transgender identity politics at them in what is supposed to be a neutral article. I'm re-reverting.

Are you quite sure you do not write from a POV yourself? First, the article does not state that transmen are born with any distinctive male anatomy. Second, to claim that transmen are "females" is not exactly NPOV, either. So try for neutrality yourself, sign your comments, and don't insert some funny "mouseover" bits into other peoples edits here. Revert. -- AlexR 05:39, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

saying that non-intersex transmen are female is not POV it is biological reality, they (at birth) have ovaries and a vagina, (whether or not a transman who has chosen to have bottom surgery is female is open to interpretation, which is why I said "born with standard female anatomies" in the article) They may not be feminine or self-identify as women but they are female, thats why they are transgendered not cisgendered. The article says they are not born with typical male anatomy, but neglects to mention that they are born with typical female anatomy, thats not giving the reader the whole story. What's a "mouseover"?

Nope, sorry, but female includes not just a female body, but also a female gender identity. Claiming that transmen are "female" therefore denies their gender identity and turns them into some sort of freaks or sickos. What you want to express is "female bodied persons" not "females". Also, if you feel that there is information lacking, insert it, but don't insert heteronormative prejudices and then whine about POV.

As for constantling inserting mouse-overs: Check this . You ought to notice what happens when you edit. Stop it. -- AlexR 17:44, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Are you sure about this? If the word "female" is used, without any other modifier (like identity), doesn't it refer to physiology by default, just as with any animal species? In other words, biologists might say male/female refer to sex, and other social behaviors, identities, feelings, etc. involve gender or sexual identity (masculine/feminine behaviors, etc). Perhaps I am wrong, but this is how I understand it. DanP 18:14, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Plus, I specifically said "people born with standard female anatomy" in the article, (though female bodied is just as good I suppose) and YOU are the one saying that a female person who self identifies as a man is a sicko or freak, NOT me, so please stop whining about supposed heteronormative prejudice. Also, I have no idea what happened to that first paragraph but I think I've fixed it.

68.117.211.92: You appear to be infected with some sort of spyware which automatically inserts URL <a href=>s around certain keywords; see for an example. Please cease editing until you've cleaned your system; I suggest you try running Adaware (it's free). -- Hadal 19:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Female" can be rather often found refering to not just sex. From the OED:

• A. adj. I. Belonging to the sex which bears offspring.
• 1. a. of human beings. In Law: heir, line female. Also predicatively.
• II. Of or pertaining to those of this sex.
• 3. Composed or consisting of women, or of female animals or plants.
• 4. a. Of or pertaining to a woman or women.
• b. Engaged in or exercised by women.
• 5. Peculiar to or characteristic of womankind.

So obviously it does at least not unambigiously refer to physical characteristics only.

@68.x And kindly stop talking so much - sorry - bullshit. I never called transmen freaks or sickos, I was refering to the common prejudice that transmen are "really" females who are either crazy or sick, but in the end, definitely females, not males. A prejudice you tried to put into the article - whether consciously or by mistake - and which I tried to keep out of it -- after all, I happen to know what I am, and I am definitely not female, even if the physical attributes were. You might want to check my user page.

Having said that, the "without a typical male physiology" bit is indeed improvable. Your edis however did not just alter this sentence, you also simply deleted information and never gave any reason for that. Obviously, that merrited a revert. -- AlexR 20:42, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't fully understand the conflict at hand, and don't mean to misunderstand either of you. But the majority of the time male/female seem to be sex. Yes, there are other contexts. If a guy said "I'm a man wearing women's underwear", that doesn't mean he changed identity or sex or anything. Maybe the guy is kinky or just involved in role-playing, and one can take words at face value. I don't know that man/woman or male/female can automatically be cast into "but what if it's a biological man, who wants to be a woman, but dresses like a whatever". That seems like extension by social construct to me, not biological fact which seems to be a slightly more common meaning with more adjectives tacked on to the words "male" and "female". But I guess I am flexible on exact meaning so long as the reader gets the picture accurately and nobody feels excluded somehow. DanP 23:24, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your example would be "a male bodied person with a female gender identity and a whatever gender presentation", and "want" has nothing to do with it -- most trans*-people would certainly not mind if they could somehow match their identity to their bodies. The problem here is that these "gender"-meanings are relatively new; some people still refuse to acknowledge that there is any difference between sex and gender at all. (Hence the "sickos and freaks".) However, if one wants to be precise, there is no way of avoiding many of these not so simple expressions. Also, you seem to imply that biology is an undeniable fact, while anything sociological is somehow less of a fact. Both is highly questionable. -- AlexR 00:29, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pictures

Are we going to have Man reflect Woman in the scope of illustrations? On Talk:Woman there's a lively discussion on how best to show a picture of a naked woman. (Many agree that there should be such a picture, but it's more a matter of which). Unfortunately, it may be a little difficult to get as good a picture for Man -- most nude photos and paintings are of women. I would also like to note that the taboos are a little different in Europe and the U.S.A. on nudity; in Europe it is more acceptable, and male nudity is not as taboo as in the U.S.A. -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 01:10, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

There's a nice picture at de:Mann of a male model, not nude (he's in sort of a racing-style swimsuit), that I would like to move here, but I'm not sure how. It would be better than the picture we have with its sarcastic-sounding "Notice that men and women are different" in spite of the fact that the woman in the picture looks like a man with breasts glued on. --Angr 08:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Manu

The word man comes from the Sanskrit word manu which means thinker. The Sanskrit word manu descended to and was borrowed by Latin where it was used to mean the thinker that used hands. Hence, our word manual as to operate manually which means for a thinker to operate with his or her hands. (Source: http://www.som.org/2laws/Store/bookdetails/ulmchapter.htm)

Even if the above is inaccurate, is it notable enough for inclusion? I really like the concept of manu, so I'd like to have it if at all possible. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 13:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should include anything that's inaccurate. The Sanskrit word manu is from the Indo-European root men- meaning 'to think'; English cognates include mind, mental, reminiscent. The Latin word manus 'hand' is from IE mh₂r-/mh₂n- and is related to a Germanic word meaning protection (extinct in English, but cf. German Vormund) and a rare Greek word for 'hand'. Germanic mannaz is from a different IE root and is related to Russian муж 'man'. It's complete nonsense to claim that the English word is borrowed from the Latin word which is borrowed from the Sanskrit word. Each word developed independently from a different IE root. --Angr/_comhrá 14:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Plenty of articles address inaccurate or unlikely peices of info. if this one is common and notable it deserves inclusion in a balanced manner. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 19:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As a Redirect of Boy?

This seems like a bad redirect for boy. It seems like boy, as a word and as the young form of men, should be better covered here if we keep this redirect. Anyone concur?

Clarification: Though boy redirects here, the content doesn't seem to cover that topic well. The article is admittedly about man, as a "male human adult." It doesn't cover topics unique to boyhood, really, though that might be covered appropriately in "child," but then that should at least be noted by the boy disambiguation. This doesn't seem like an article that covers "boy" so well that boy should redirect here. Notthe9 03:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, what is a better choice?? Georgia guy 16:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have thought that both boy and girl might be stand alone articles at some point, assuming enough content is made available. Sam Spade 16:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, does anyone think there is enough info at this moment?? Georgia guy 16:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

well, I don't, but if someone wants to write it, Godspeed. Sam Spade 17:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, then what is a better choice?? Georgia guy 17:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, nobody additional has responded within an hour, and here is my answer:

• The article Child appears to cover the general subject of topics unique to children. Topics unique to boys as distinguished from girls don't appear to be anywhere else in Misplaced Pages. I say a re-direct to child should do. Any objections?? Please explain if you have any. Georgia guy 18:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is probably along the lines of what is appropriate. Man can cover things about many things about boys as opposed to girls, and child can cover the rest of that plus boys as opposed to men. Since both are valuable, I think maybe boy should go to the disambiguation.

Statistics

An estimated 1% to about 5-10% of all men are mostly or exclusively homosexual,

This statement doesn't really make too much sense to me... 1% to 5% to 10%? Also, where do these come from? I find it hard to believe that 10% of men "prefer sexual and/or romantic relationships with other men" in a detectable sense. Notthe9 19:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the 10% figure comes from the Kinsey report, but even then if I remember correctly it was 10% of all men have had at least one homosexual experience since turning 18. I imagine a lot of men have "fooled around" with other men on at least one occasion without considering themselves gay or even bi. --Angr/_comhrá 19:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If that is really what the figure meant to convey, then we should definately remove that figure. This does not measure whether someone is "mostly or exclusively homosexual." Also, whatever does end up there should not be a range given by three points, though multiple studies could be referenced (if they were actually referenced). Notthe9 03:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The study which generated the 10% figure was so amazingly suspect as to have be provided as an example of infamously unscientific research in a psychology class I was in. We learned how the survey was of a small number of men (100 or 1000, something like that) enlisted in the U.S. navy after WWII. It asked them if they had ever had a sexual or erotic experience in the company of other men, or had an erotic fantasy involving other males. 10% responded "yes", and these were all tallied as 'homosexual'. This survey has been misused thenceforth. Sam Spade 16:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, can you recomend some reliabe figures so we can fix the article? Notthe9 17:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)