Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:41, 27 July 2020

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Trans woman article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 4 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Gender studies This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RouBa1998 (article contribs).

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated, especially about Neutral point of view, Wording of lede and Contradicts the articles woman and female. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting on that topic, and read through the list of highlighted discussions below before starting a new one: Neutral point of view Wording of lede Contradicts the articles woman and female Restarting a debate that has already been settled constitutes disruptive editing, tendentious editing, and "asking the other parent", unless consensus changes.

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs) 18:07, June 16, 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change "a transwoman is a woman" langauge at the opening of the article. As everyone in the world knows, men are NOT women and men canNOT become women. You call the value of all of Misplaced Pages into question when you publish articles baldly proclaiming that 2 plus 2 equals 5 as though there is no controversy on the matter. If everyone knows you are publishing "night is day" articles, of what conceivable worth is your "encyclopedia?" 2601:203:203:5800:833:BB8B:24B8:2BB (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Reopening. As it stands it is incorrect. Not tolerable on wikipedia.

 Not done: Please do not reopen based on your personal opinion of "truth" . See WP:NOTTRUTH for more information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

It is really easy to rephrase the first sentence to be neutral, as in “Transwomen are people who consider themselves women, and are increasingly considered by society as women, who were not assigned female at birth.” To me and many, many others, transwomen are no women. Our view point is being systematically marginalised by people pretending transwomen are *factually* women when in reality this is merely world view to which millions or even billions of people worldwide do not subscribe.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Jack Frost (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Why do you need consensus for something that is clearly using the wrong wording? "A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth" is factually inaccurate. There is much debate as to what it means to be a man, or to be a woman, but one thing is for sure: claiming that I am an elephant doesn't mean my Misplaced Pages article should say "...is an elephant." It should reflect the objective state of the world and my claims about it. "...is a person who claims to be an elephant" therefore would be much more accurate, and neutral. "A trans woman is a person who, having been born as a man, prefers to identify and conduct herself socially as a woman." would be a good place to start, a neutral and respectful assertion about the biological state of the person at birth and the adjustment to their chosen personality. Camilovietnam (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, here at WP, we follow what reliable sources say, not what individual editors personally believe to be true. Reliable sources on Trans women, by overwhelming consensus, state that they are women. What is more, your personal description of the "objective state of the world" is, AFAIK, not supported by reliable sources and therefore not germane to tHs discussion. I would go further, and say that your "claiming that you are an elephant" example is somewhere between a red herring and classic NOTHERE. I have seen no reliable sources stating either that you are an elephant or that you claim to be an elephant, so the case is not relevant. Are you an elephant? If not, let's move on. Newimpartial (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per the above. Do not open this request again without obtaining consensus. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

At least put those "reliable sources" on the article. I have found 6 reliable sources from leading institutions and NONE of them uses the formula "A trans woman is a woman". Here are my references: (1. Harvard 2. Stanford 3. Princeton 4. Johns Hopkins University 5. American Psychological Univeristy 6. Planned Parenthood) --Lenny230 (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be common here to claim that there is “overwhelming consensus” here and there are “reliable sources” backing this up. Yet, if you follow the request for comment, you will find that there is no consensus, but a mere stalemate on the issue and that no linked “reliable sources’ which ought to back up the claim actually hold up. If this is to be changed, maybe show some support for me in the relevant talk section I opened. Maybe if enough people do this, maybe we can get a repeated request for comment. I wouldn’t get my hopes, though. However, one can always try, maybe even should always try. 78.48.179.127 (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Warning of possible edit brigading

This article was linked here, and some users professed a desire to change the page as 'Misplaced Pages (has been) co-opted by Trans propaganda'. This is just to explain the source if a flurry of edits suddenly comes in, thanks. Amekyras (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

It should not be stated that transwomen are women

The Misplaced Pages article on transwomen should state neither explictly nor implicitly that transwomen are women. This is a gross violation of wikipedia’s principle of neutral point of view, specifically of “Do not state opinions as facts”.

Whether transwomen are seen as women, depends highly on one’s notion of a woman, so we are dealing with opinions here. There are many millions, if not billions, of people worldwide who do not consider transwomen to be women, and from all sorts of creeds and political positions. For instance, at least the majority of trans-exclusional radical feminists reject the statement. No doubt that highly religious Christians and Muslims would disagree, too, as ell as several other right-leaning people.

Hence, the first sentence “Transwomen are women who …” must be rephrased. For example “Transwomen are people who consider themselves to be women, though not being assigned female at birth.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.131.17.177 (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The wording of the lead sentence is based on reliable sources and previous repeated consensus. There's no guideline/policy violation here. Your proposed wording, on the other hand, is poor: "though not assigned female at birth" is begging the question, and in general it's not based on any RS. --Equivamp - talk 06:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

(1) What consensus? I dissent, others dissent. Show me your consensus. Who is consenting to it? (2) Which “reliable sources”? I see none given, but even more: (3) The statement “transwomen are women” depends on one’s exact notion of “women”, which therefore is, as already stated, a matter of opinion – What would a “reliable source” for the statement “transwomen are women” even be? (4) How is “though not assigned female at birth” begging the question? (5) Even so, do you consider the statement “traswomen are people who consider themselves women” false?

If you claim that “transwomen are women” is (A) not a matter of opinion, but of fact, and (B) that it’s factually true and by society accepted to be true, you will have to back that up. All of it, and I see none.

I see really no reason at all why anyone would not just go “Okay, well. Let’s just not make a big hassle out of it, let’s just switch to the more cautios wording, which isn’t false in any way and probably is more accurate to many people.” – why even defend such a small sentence against a true, more neutral, more diplomatic alternative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.131.17.177 (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

No sea lioning, please. The sources are clear. Newimpartial (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I really do see none given. Are we viewing the same article? This is not sealioning. If the sources are clear, I must be blind or too unfamiliar with wikipedia and then I kindly ask to be pointed to these sources and to where I could have found them on the wikipedia page. – Also, my case does not solely or even mainly rest on the lack of sources, this has been only point (2) out of five, with point (3) explaining that it even has to be established that this is a matter of giving sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.131.17.177 (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

On what planet does the very rare Intersection of the radical views of the few trans-exclusional radical feminists and the beliefs of an unknown number of highly religious Christians and Muslims reflect a more neutral consensus. Sources and citations are not usually included in the lede of an article, as it its just a summary of the main body of the article. ~ BOD ~ 11:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I have not even claimed that: I am not suggesting to change the lead sentence to reflect these views (which are not radical at all); I am suggesting to change the lead sentence to not reflect anyone’s mere views at all. As it stands, the Misplaced Pages page states an opinion as a fact without even trying to back it up. And yeah I know where sources generally are on Misplaced Pages articles, but there are none cited for the statement “Transwomen are women” – and I am not going through 38 cited sources to see if there’s anything about that in any of them. If you have a specific non-opinion source explaining why transwomen are women, cite it. But again, it isn’t even a matter of sources because we are dealing with opinions.

On a different note, why would these views be “radical”? I suspect that many average people across the globe consider transwomen to not be women – however, I don’t have anything to back that up, so I only mentioned large groups of which this is kind of known. If you are claiming this view is radical or fringe, back it up. In fact, if not viewing transwomen as women was a radical or fringe view, we wouldn’t have trans people complaining about not being accepted as whatever they claim to be by society, no? Doesn’t N. Wynn tell in a bunch of video essays about the struggles to “pass”, to actually being considered a woman?

No: On what planet would “transwomen are women …” reflect a more neutral consensus than “transwomen are people who consider themselves women …”? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.131.17.177 (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Forgive me, you ask for sources, but then refuse to include the 38 non opinion (they would be unlikely to included here if they were) sources already provided and then say regarding your own opinion and arguement.... 'I don’t have anything to back that up' ~ BOD ~ 13:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I ask for sources for a very specific claim, but you refer to “all the sources” as if that’s how citing is done. That’s like saying “Oh, no: This and that is true, I’ve read it in Science magazine. Here are all the 38 issues which have articles on this topic. – Oh, what issue and article exactly for this specific claim? What, why are you asking this, are you refusing my sources?” So you seriously expect me to read all 38 sources to see if any of them argue that transwomen are women? It’s kind of childish at this point really.

And again, I don’t even try to bring in my opinion as a fact on the wikipedia page. You are the one who wishes to have an opinion claimed as a fact at a wikipedia page instead of implemeting a neutral wording. So you back it up. I merely conceded in a side issue (about whether my views are radical) – not even my actual issue – that I didn’t bring up an estimation (thinking many average people do not view transwomen as women) because I couldn’t back it up, and now you pretend like I can’t backup my argument. My argument doesn’t rely even in the slightest on probably half of earths population disagreeing with your notion, so I don’t need to back that up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.131.17.177 (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

At the top of there's a big box that looks like this:

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated, especially about Neutral point of view, Wording of lede and Contradicts the articles woman and female. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting on that topic, and read through the list of highlighted discussions below before starting a new one: Neutral point of view Wording of lede Contradicts the articles woman and female Restarting a debate that has already been settled constitutes disruptive editing, tendentious editing, and "asking the other parent", unless consensus changes.

I suggest you read it and the links it contains and note the final comment: Restarting a debate that has already been settled may be taken as "asking the other parent", disruptive and even tendentious, unless consensus has changed or is likely to change. --John B123 (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. I did overlook this box. So I’ve read most of the votes in the straw poll and find none of the opposition of option 2 (the one I’m suggesting) is backed up by any good arguments and neither is much of the support for option 1. For instance, one voter claims this is backed up by reliable sources, but later on most of the listed sources are found to either not even mention the word “trans woman“ or to not defining it, and none of them to support the usage of option 1. Other voters opposing option 2 only refer to the “reliable sources” mentioned before and again others claim that option 2 is harmful as it is implicitly taking a side, namely that trans women are not women, by not explicitly taking the opposing side, namely that they are – so he or she argues we should take the opposing side to avoid taking sides. This doesn’t make sense in the slightest. Yet another one claims it’s a fact that transwomen are women (without backing this up of course) and not stating so would be “tiptoeing” and yet another opposition is grounded that option 2 implies the status of trans women as women rests upon something (again already presuming that trans women are women). Since we are to judge not merely by majority of vote, but also by quality of argument (if I got that right), I do not think that this settlement of consensus truly holds.

But okay – there has been a request for comment before. And even though I think it has been badly settled, I don’t want to push anyone further to change the wording in a situation like this. However, I propose to leave this talk section open and undeleted to see how many other people feel the same – that this is badly settled and that the wording still should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.131.17.177 (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The wording of the opening isn't the option I thought was the best, but we have to go with the consensus. You're right, consensus isn't a count of votes, the strength of argument is very important, see WP:NOTVOTE. As this is not a formal discussion, it won't be "closed", nor will it be deleted. However it will get archived 120 days after the last comment is added. --John B123 (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

IP, as seen at Talk:Trans woman/Archive 5#Neutrality needed in opening description, I commented on the big RfC that took place in 2018. I noted that while there was consensus on a couple of things, there actually wasn't consensus on whether to use "is a woman" or "identifies as a woman." The closer was clear about that. As you saw, about half of the participants supported "identifies as" and solid sources were provided for that wording. Because the opinions were about equally split, there was no consensus to change the lead sentence. The current lead sentence is a WP:Status quo matter. Misplaced Pages is stuck with it unless a new consensus is formed for changing it (WP:CCC). And given the previous big debate on it, that is unlikely. One can try to get it changed, of course, like you briefly did. And considering that it's been two years since the aforementioned RfC and it's different editors taking issue with the current lead wording, one might argue that WP:CCC's "proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive" statement doesn't apply in this case. It does feel recent to me and others, though. WP:Forum shop, however, doesn't apply. Anyway, I wouldn't advise you to pursue this since taking it on will be very draining and another standstill is the likely result. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You write that “there actually wasn’t consensus on whether to use "is a woman" or "idetifies as a woman.” – yes, that’s true. I should have written “the result has been badly interpreted” as I think that the votes for “is a woman” are badly justified, so I don’t even see it as a true stalemate. Superficially, the votes have been 18–17 support and 5–6 opposition for “is a woman” and “identifies as a woman”. But when I subtract votes with bad justifications (as laid out before), I get 11–17 and 5–1 or something (yieldig 6–16, a clear consensus for “identifies as woman”). (Only the linguistic reason “trans woman implies woman, and it’s shorter” stands, which I also think is very poor because the term “trans woman” itself was coined by a transgender activist and, so no wonder it implies “woman” – now what does this reflect? Nothing. It’s a loaded term upon which no further ontological case should rest. And furthemore, are “body builders” actual builders because it says so? Are “loan sharks” actual sharks?) What I, of course, personally think is going on is that wikipedia articles like this one are closely watched by trans activists who want to see firmly established that “trans women are women”, so they are overrepresented in the votes. I therefore think it is crucial to examine the reasons given for the votes, which in my view, just don’t hold up at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.124.38 (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Discounting editors because you think they may be trans or activists, or assuming hidden intent, goes against a couple of the core principles of wikipedia, WP:Civility and WP:AGF. Highly suggest new editors start editing less contentious articles for a while to get the hang of wikipedia, it's culture and rules. Rab V (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I don’t discount them because I think they are activists, I disagree with them and also think they are activists doing activism because their reasoning is so bad that it makes most sense to assume they argue not for the reasons they hold, but for the political objects they have. I have never argued on the grounds that they are activists. I merely wanted to say that I think that this activism is happening here, so one should be cautious lest wikipedia falls prey to political activism (and, well, I think it already has). In a direct discussion with someone, I would never assume bad intent on the other person’s side or accuse him of activism (even if I was convinced of it), let alone rest any arguments on this assumption. However, that shouldn’t hinder me to express a general concern I hold, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.124.38 (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd advise some of the regular editors on this page to ask for a proof of work, so to speak (see below), before spending such large amounts of time in discussions we've had many times before. As such, to the anonymous user who started this section, can you provide three sources which are reliable for either the statement "trans women are not women" or the statement "it is disputed whether trans women are women"? If you cannot provide such sources than there is no reason why a Misplaced Pages article would support, implicitly or explicitly, either statement. A computer science term, "proof of work" is where you get an agent to prove that they've invested time in something before you agree to invest time in a response, so as to not be overloaded by the same requests over and over again. — Bilorv (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what sources will be accepted for backing that something is an opinion instead of a fact (would it suffice to show some differing opinions?), but here are the three I have come up with: (1) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Feminist Perspectives on Sex and Gender says right from the start that “One possible way to understand ‘woman’ in this claim is to take it as a sex term: ‘woman’ picks out human females and being a human female depends on various biological and anatomical features (like genitalia)”. Later on, it discusses various opinions on this term, one being Theodore Bach’s, which excludes transwomen from being women. It even cites a contradicting opinion by Bettcher, after which Bach’s view is considered to be “mainstream”, saying: “Bettcher argues that there is more than one ‘correct’ way to understand womanhood: at the very least, the dominant (mainstream), and the resistant (trans) conceptions: Dominant views like that of Bach’s tend to erase trans people’s experiences ”. (2) Sophie Allen is a philosopher, who argues in an essay published on Medium that there are serious ontological problems with considering transwomen as women: Medium: If Transwomen are Women, What Is a Woman?. (3) And finally, here is a comment from feminist Catherine Bann, Peacenews: Trans Women are Trans Women upholding the view that female biology does matter regarding women’s issue and (implicitly) when considering whether trans women are women. The author quotes a transsexual women in the final passage saying “Women are members of the female sex. People born male just aren’t and never can be.” (possibly because she doesn’t dare to say it explicitly herself). That also shows that even amongst trans women, there is no consensus about whether trans women are women.

So, well. These are my three sources making clear that “trans women are women” is far from being an accepted fact, but is in reality a mere opinion, which is widely debated and contradicted.

I also still think that burden of proof lies on the one saying that something is a fact instead of the one saying that it isn’t. I still see no reliable sources for the case that transwomen are factually women. 78.49.135.228 (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest registering an account if you wish to work on this article but that is up to you. It may be that there should be a section on any philosophical or semantic dispute over whether trans women are women. We would not have any trouble finding sources which say they are. Read up on WP:RS and do a little more research and this is a possibility. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I have reopened this talk page since it had been archived for non-holding reasons: (A) I have not once complained about trans women. (B) My case does not rest upon my sole opinion, nor have I explictly stated it. (C) I have only once been asked for sources – namely in the last post before this discussion had been archived, leaving me no chance to respond. I have now included sources. It does not make sense to leave this discussion archived. I kindly ask everyone to leave it open and not to revert my decision to re-open it. Alternatively, I would open a new talk section, but this would look confusing and unnecessarily clutter this talk page. Also, there would be no merit. Thank you! 78.49.135.228 (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

IP, do not remove comments after people have responded to them, Also, add signatures to all comments. Better yet, stop sealioning. If there is something here worth saying, surely you can cut to the chase and say it without these walls of text. All of this has already been discussed to death in the past, and repeating this as if it were brand new is not civil behavior, and is not productive. Misplaced Pages is not a platform for unrestricted speech. You do not have a right to say whatever you want on this or any talk page, and nobody is obligated to respond to your personal satisfaction. Grayfell (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Related discussion from my user talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I have not removed comments after people have responded to them. I only re-opened this talk section and removed my complaint about it being archived (to which noone has replied), replacing it by the explanation you now moved here. I have again removed this complaint, because it is irrelevant now, clutters this page and now Eggishorn has been so nice to link to the relevant discussion on his or her talk page. I also now moved my response to Bilorv at the right place. If you want to revert all this, feel free to do so, but it doesn’t make sense and only makes this talk section look confusing. Also, this is no sealioning. I have clearly stated an issue with this article and from then on, only responded. I think the request for comment has been badly decided for reasons I have already given, so it might be worth it to reconsider it. 93.132.191.74 (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, well, Equivamp, if you are to revert the changes I have made, it would obviously have been only fair to at least leave the comment I put here explaining the changes Imade. I also responded to Grayfell in this comment. At least my changes only removed my own comments. Now this is just rude. Please refrain from doing reverts which remove actual relevant discussion for the sake of restating irrelevant comments. 93.132.191.74 (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not rude, because we don't go back and modify talk page comments unless there is a good reason. "I thought it was better this way" is not a good reason. I have previously directed you to the Talk Page Guidelines and I will again quote those here: But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes.Emphasis added It doesn't matter that you don't think it was a direct reply, modifying comments, even your own, after the conversation has progressed is definitely and widely perceived as rude. Your refactoring of your own comments after DIYeditor and Greyfell responded is not a good practice for an effective conversation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I was specifically refering to having a comment of mine being removed by a revert – this is what I have considered “just rude”, not the revert itself. (I thought I had been pretty clear on this?) I don’t know what refactors you are talking about now, but in case you mean the change of order of the comments: I restored an original order, indicating who is replying to whom. How is that bad or “ineffective”? I also don’t know to whom it should be rude if I merely remove an obsolete comment, specifically addressed to you, which I have also repeated on your talk page, after the discussion on the talk page had been settled. Do you think it’s rude that I removed this after we talked about this at length at your talk page? If you want to continue this discussion, we should maybe again move to your talk page. There has been more than enough meta-discussion on this talk section …93.132.191.74 (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It's important to remember that Misplaced Pages's policy is to assume good faith. This means that, unless significant evidence is given to the contrary (such as vandalism), every editor should be treated under the assumption that they are only interested in helping the article, and they should not be attacked based on views they may not hold. I do agree that more neutral wording is needed in the opening definition of trans women, perhaps something along the lines of "A trans woman identifies as a woman and was assigned a sex other than female at birth." However, trans women should still generally be referred to as women and with she/her pronouns, as Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style states, "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." Mediator64 (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Merriam Webster defines the word "woman" as "an adult female person", and defines "female" as "an individual of the sex that is typically capable of bearing young or producing eggs". The statement that "trans woman are woman" is not neutral, and it should be changed to "A trans woman is a person that identifies as female, but was not assigned female at birth.", or one of the several other neutral alternatives. 45.46.166.68 (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)45.46.166.68

We don't use the dictionary as a source for concepts. We use secondary sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

If you search a dictionary long enough, you will find definitions that contradict each other. Language is complex, so a dictionary cannot act as a source in this way. However, for the sake of this talk, it goes to show the definition of the word "trans woman" on this article is not neutral. In my view, no source could ever tell you what the "true" definition of a word is, so I doubt the search for secondary sources will provide anything satisfying. And while I do strongly believe in recognizing trans people as the gender they identify, Misplaced Pages is not the place for such advocacy. It is Misplaced Pages's policy to refer to trans women as women in general, and that policy should not be violated, but again I believe more neutral wording for the opening definition will add to the informational value of this article. I feel that this discussion has gone for a long time; it might be time to contact an administrator or other authority to resolve this issue. Mediator64 (talk) 06:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

This talk page needs...

...an important banner saying that "this is not the place to claim that the article should say trans women are not women". Any thoughts here?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not accurate. This would be the place to provide evidence that the terminology is incorrect. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

If you’re hinting at my proposal: I was proposing that the article should not say trans women are women, not that it should say that “trans women are no women”. For this, it would suffice to argue that the terminology is dubious rather than incorrect (which I did). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.132.68.27 (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This is the first result when someone searches “what is the life expectancy of trans women of colour” but it is false. It was actually written by an anti trans organisation and they are claiming that a statistic that has been proven true is false. This should be removed TPSOA (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The article states that the statistic is false although widely disseminated. --Equivamp - talk 08:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

'Trans women are women who are assigned male at birth' is inaccurate, it should read 'Trans women are men who prefer to be recognised as female' Battleofwuhan (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See above Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Lenny230's edits

Can anyone watch Lenny230's edits of this article; making sure they're good?? (Somebody other than Lenny please respond to this before Lenny himself does.) Georgia guy (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

   Why are you in such a rush?  My contributions are 100% verifiable and with valid sources. (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to use the definition of "Trans woman" used by leading institutions.

I have done research and found that the following institutions (whose credibility, prestige and pro LGBT policies are widely known) use the following definitions of "trans woman":

1. HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL: Sexual and Gender Minority Health Equity Initiative

  "An individual assigned male at birth and identifies as a girl or woman"
   Source: https://lgbt.hms.harvard.edu/terminology

2. STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Vaden Health Services

  "Someone who was male assigned at birth who identifies as a woman or on the feminine spectrum"
   Source: https://vaden.stanford.edu/health-resources/lgbtqia-health/transgender-health/glossary-terms-related-transgender-communities

3. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: LGBT Center - The Language of Gender

  "A child or adult who was born anatomically male but has a female gender identity"
   Source: http://lgbt.princeton.edu/resources

4. JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, School of Medicine - Glossary of Transgender Terms

  "Someone assigned the male gender at birth who identifies on the female spectrum"
   Source: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/articles/glossary-of-terms-1

5. AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION - Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People

  "A person whose sex assigned at birth was male, but who identifies as a woman"
   Source:  https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/transgender.pdf

6. PLANNED PARENTHOOD - Transgender Identity Terms and Labels

  "A person whose sex assigned at birth was male but whose gender identity is female"
   Source: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/gender-identity/transgender/transgender-identity-terms-and-labels

In conclusion:

• As you can verify NONE of them use the phrase "A trans woman is a woman" which is the phrase used in the article (without any reference).

• ALL of the institutions indicated use the formula: "What the person is biologically + What the person identifies with". If we are to follow the principle of Misplaced Pages which is to use valid references and verifiable sources this is the definition formula that the article must use for the time being.

I propose to use the following phrase: "A trans woman is a person assigned male at birth who identifies as a woman or on the feminine spectrum" . The proposed definition is a summary of the definitions detailed lines above.

Lenny230 (talk) 5 July 2020, 16:47 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenny230 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

In other words, do you really think trans women are not women?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lenny230: This has been discussed on multiple occasions before and no consensus to change the opening sentence has been achieved. Please see the box above this page's table of contents for links to previous discussions. --John B123 (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The definition should not be what person 1 or person 2 "thinks". If the definition is debatable then it should come from a verifiable consensus which is what I am proposing with valid sources and verifiable references. Can you show references from leading institutions using the phrase "a trans woman is a woman" as a formal definition? Lenny230 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Can one of the watchers of this page link us to the RfC mentioned recently here in the edsum, so that Lenny and I can see why we are writing the article in a way that Lenny objects to? It will help both of us. Thanks. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: Talk:Trans woman/Archive 4#RfC on introduction --John B123 (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you John, I shall read it carefully. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hah, it's huge. Don't expect to hear from me for a while. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a no, for reasons that have been rehashed at length in previous discussions (linked above). Cheers, -sche (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Completely unacceptable to have a definition without valid references or verifiable sources. Seems some editors are imposing their own agenda here on Misplaced Pages. The principle of neutral content is breached. --Lenny230 (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree. The lede into this article should be changed and is absolutely not backed up with any verifiable references. Vember94 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages in English imposes a definition out of sync with the one used by Misplaced Pages in other languages

It is understood that Misplaced Pages in any given language is completely independent of other editions of Misplaced Pages and they are all under no obligation to be replicas of one another. However if all editions of Misplaced Pages are to follow the same principles (especially the principle of neutral content) it is expected that Misplaced Pages articles in different languages covering the same topic should have a reasonable and fair amount of resemblance.

Having said that, this is a sample of the definitions of "trans woman" in 3 languages other than English (French, Spanish and Portuguese). The reader will be able to notice that the following definitions do show resemblance:

1. Misplaced Pages in French: article "Femme trans"

Original definition in French: "Une femme trans ou femme transgenre est un être humain ayant été assigné homme à la naissance et qui a une identité de genre féminine"
English translation: "A trans woman or transgender woman is a human being who has been assigned male at birth and who has an identity of feminine gender"

2. Misplaced Pages in Spanish: article "Mujer transgénero"

Original definition in Spanish: "Una mujer transgénero, —abreviadamente mujer trans—, es una persona que nace con sexo masculino, pero percibe su identidad de género como femenina."
English translation: "A transgender woman, -in brief trans woman-, is a person who has been born with male sex, but perceives their gender identity as feminine"

3. Misplaced Pages in Portuguese: article "Mulher trans"

Original definition in Portuguese: "Uma mulher trans é uma pessoa que foi atribuída ao sexo ou género masculino ao nascer que possui uma identidade de gênero feminina"
English translation: "A trans woman is a person who was attributed (assigned to) male sex or gender at birth who possesses an identity of feminine gender"

As illustrated the definitions of trans woman in other Wikipedias use the formula: "What the person is biologically + What person identifies with". NONE of them uses the equivalent of "A trans woman is woman" used in Misplaced Pages in English.

References

1. Harvard Medical School: Sexual and Gender Minority Health Equity Initiative Terminology: Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and More Retrieved July 4, 20202
2. Stanford University: Vaden Health Services Glossary of Terms Related to Transgender Communities Retrieved July 4, 2020
3. Princeton University: LGBT Center Resources, The Language of Gender[https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwWwPT2QBxT6YmVSSEk1VzBjOFE/view Gender Spectrum Retrieved July 4, 2020
4. Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine: Glossary of Transgender Terms Retrieved July 4, 2020
5. American Psychological Association: Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People – Appendix A - Definitions, Page 863 Retrieved July 4, 2020
6. Planned Parenthood: Transgender Identity Terms and Labels Retrieved July 4, 2020
7. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woman
8. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female
9. Femme trans, Misplaced Pages in French.
10. Mujer transgénero, Misplaced Pages in Spanish.
11. Mulher trans, Misplaced Pages in Portuguese.

--Lenny230 (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Other Wikipedias are not reliable sources for use in en.WP articles. As to the other concerns, they are discussed in the section above (and are non-starters for the reasons given there and in previous discussions linked to from there). Cheers! -sche (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

If there is no neutrality on this page and personal agendas are imposed so easily then there is no point to continue as a donor --Lenny230 (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lenny230: First of all, your premise at the top of consistency across different Wikipedias is mistaken, as there is no Misplaced Pages principle or guideline that requires this. Secondly, what User:-sche said; it's enshrined at WP:WPINARS. Thirdly, I'm pretty sure you don't know much French or Portuguese, or you wouldn't have posted the translations you did, which pretty much invalidates the rest of your argument even if consistency were a Misplaced Pages principle, which it isn't.

But giving you the benefit of the doubt, let's set all that aside, for the moment. The purpose of this page (as every article Talk page) is to discuss improvements to *this* article. Do you have a proposal for an addition, or a change to this article that you'd like to discuss? Just so you know, this type of question has arisen before (more than once) and if you want to check the archives, you can find lots and lots of points of view about it.

I noticed that you tried a change at Trans man along these lines as well.

P.S., just a note about linking: you don't need to use footnotes to link foreign Misplaced Pages article, you can just use a foreign in-line link, like this: Femme trans. See here for an explanation. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I stand by my original post: it is consistent. A definition without valid references and verifiable sources is currently being imposed in the English wikipedia. Something that does not happen in the other editions showed as examples. And not even consistent with the definition used in the transgender article --Lenny230 (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I am proposing the following definition: "A trans woman is a person assigned male at birth who identifies as a woman or on the feminine spectrum". This definition summarizes the following sources I have found: Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Johns Hopkins University, American Psychological Association and Planned Parenthood.

@Lenny230: You mean, Misplaced Pages is supposed to talk about trans women more as if they were a third gender and not a kind of woman?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Georgia guy: Are you able to find references and sources from organizations or institutions (with the same level or recognition that I am proposing) that use the phrase "a trans woman is a woman"? That way you can support it. Because all you do is using and repeating your personal point of view. --Lenny230 (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lenny230: It's the point of view of people who understand what transgenderism is. Georgia guy (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Georgia guy: Support that with valid references and verifiable sources which is the purpose of Misplaced Pages. You are not the one who decides who understands it and who do not. --Lenny230 (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lenny230: Your source 1 says:

• Transgender Woman or Girl | A woman or girl assigned a male sex at birth.

That seems fine to me. Mathglot (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

That seems very US-centric. In many other countries, legal gender is simply independent from sex assignment, and the "person" or "individual who" language is entirely unnecessary. Also note that the consensus in previous RfCs is that the "who identifies" language has been used as a dog whistle by "gender critical" FRINGE activists to undercut "gender ideology", whatever that is supposed to be. We are not supposed to cater to FRINGE perspectives. Newimpartial (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

In the #Proposal to use the definition of "Trans woman" used by leading institutions. section above, Lenny230 very clearly showed that "identifies as" is not some WP:Fringe position and can actually be supported by WP:Reliable sources, including the American Psychological Association, which is an authoritative source on sexual orientation and gender identity topics. Even LGBT-friendly organization Planned Parenthood, which some LGBT editors will cite for other things but apparently not for this, uses "but whose gender identity is female." A similar presentation of quality sources for "identifies as" or similar were presented in the big RfC that took place in 2018. And like I mentioned before, there actually wasn't consensus on whether to use "is a woman" or "identifies as a woman." At this point in time, no reliable sources for defining a trans woman as "A trans woman is a woman" have been presented. Lenny230 is correct to adhere to our WP:Verifiability policy and shouldn't be maligned for doing so. Yes, there are people who want to use "identifies as" to invalidate trans people's identities, but we should be focusing on how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work and making sure that we aren't casting aspersions toward Lenny230 and/or trying to run Lenny230 off.

If Lenny230 wants to pursue this with respect to WP:Consensus can change and start a new WP:RfC on it, so be it. Lenny230, you could easily start a new RfC on this matter and advertise it at Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view and/or even at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) since it relates to our WP:Neutral point of view policy and interpreting it appropriately. When advertising it, you have to keep what WP:APPNOTE states in mind. For example, you can ping all of the editors previously involved with the aforementioned RfC, but your wording has to be neutral. All this stated, I did note in the #It should not be stated that transwomen are women section above that "I wouldn't advise to pursue this since taking it on will be very draining and another standstill is the likely result." Please don't WP:Ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hear hear. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 18:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22, Thank you very much for your thoughtful response. It is great to see that there is still common sense on Misplaced Pages and that the value of my contributions is appreciated. I will proceed with your suggestion to advertise this on the Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view page. Best regards. --Lenny230 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Please note that I have not been casting aspersions or maligning any editor; I have simply noted why it is that "who identifies" language meets with resistance on WP, in spite of its literal accuracy. Newimpartial (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Because in this article Misplaced Pages is incorrectly allowing subjectivity (the perception of the phrase "who identifies" by certain editors) to prevail over objectivity (a literally accurate phrase as you correctly state). If the Misplaced Pages principle of neutrality was applied here then objectivity would prevail over subjectivity. WP is not the place where personal views or feelings should prevail. In this article, unfortunately, they do. --Lenny230 (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Literalness and objectivity are not the same thing, by any impartial or "objective" standard. The use of language is at best intersubjective, which is what WP aims for: the use of language that can potentially allow readers to understand what is intended. "Dog whistle" language, whether intended or not by the editors introducing it, impedes effective interconnectivity. Also, the only reason I can see why you chose your preferred Harvard definition over the more relevant "woman or girl assigned a male sex at birth" (from the same source) would seem to be your feelz, Lenny. Take the log out of your own eye first, etc. Newimpartial (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

You are seeing incorrectly. Harvard has updated the definition from the one they had 3 days ago. --Lenny230 (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Took a quick peak at the sources used above to suggest changes to the lead and stopped at the first one when it defined clearly trans woman as "A woman or girl assigned a male sex at birth." This is seeming like a waste of editor time. Rab V (talk) 08:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC) ___

References

1. ^ Harvard Medical School: Sexual and Gender Minority Health Equity Initiative Terminology: Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and More Retrieved July 4, 2020
2. Stanford University: Vaden Health Services Glossary of Terms Related to Transgender Communities Retrieved July 4, 2020
3. Princeton University: LGBT Center Resources, The Language of Gender Gender Spectrum Retrieved July 4, 2020
4. Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine: Glossary of Transgender Terms Retrieved July 4, 2020
5. American Psychological Association: Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People – Appendix A - Definitions, Page 863 Retrieved July 4, 2020
6. Planned Parenthood: Transgender Identity Terms and Labels Retrieved July 4, 2020

First link

I'm confused by the first link in this article - behind the word "woman". It leads to an article that defines "woman" as "female human being", which in turn leads to an article that defines "female" in biological terms. Are trans women biologically female?

NB This is a rhetorical question intended to draw attention to a possible internal contradiction on Misplaced Pages, and not an attempt to start a discussion about whether or not trans women are biologically female.

Edit: I've come under fire for not making any explicit suggestions in my original post, so here goes. Do one of the following: 1. Remove the link from the first sentence of Trans woman to the first sentence of Woman. 2. Remove the link from the first sentence of Woman to the first sentence of Female. 3. Add the word "typically" (or some synonym of it) to the first sentence of Woman. My preference, if I have to express one, is option 1 (for semantic reasons), which is why I haven't taken the discussion to one of the other Talk pages.

H Remster (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It took me ages to find this post, because you inserted it into a post from yesterday. Could you please not do that. Option 1, (the obvious easy solution to this dilemma) was tried yesterday, and reverted 30 minutes later. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 11:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. I tried to weigh the criticism I'm continuing to receive for not having made concrete suggestions in my original post against any criticism I'd receive for inserting an addendum. It looks as if I made the wrong call, but I'll know in future. (I infer from your response that officially sanctioned editors receive some sort of notification of any edit, and that you're an officially sanctioned editor.) H Remster (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I shall respond on your Talk page. No worries though, all is good. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 11:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

^Not sure this is even a productive statement. Can you point out what you are talking about and how it relates to an issue with the article? Generally speaking the correct term would be source/citation rather than link. Sxologist (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

To respond to the option 1/option 2 business: option 1 seems unnecessary to me because a trans woman is both a woman and a Woman. Option 2 does seem necessary to me, because while women are all female, not all are Female. But this is not the Talk page to discuss that proposal, and I am pessimistic anyway because my experience of pages where MEDRS lurks in the corners is that they are very difficult to change outside of a very limited paradigm. Newimpartial (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, my actual view is that this is a semantic issue masquerading as a metaphysical issue and motivated by an ethical issue, and that it could be resolved by an explicit statement that the controversial terms ("woman", "female", etc.) have both older, biological senses and newer, sociological senses. But that isn't going to happen either. H Remster (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

And there I simply disagree with you. The idea that the biological sense of "woman" is older than the sociological one is (i) unsupported by evidence and (ii) usually invoked by people who want to incorporate, say, the last hundred years of life science while excluding the last hundred years of social science. Looked at over the last millennium or so, I don't see any basis for asserting that "female" or "woman" have been biological terms rather than or prior to being social terms. They have usually been both, and most often without strict delineation about which sense is meant in a specific instance. Newimpartial (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

That's OK. I'm not trying to advance my official position here. I'm merely illustrating why I, like you, don't expect to see my preferred outcome. (As an aside, I'd be interested to know privately what you think about "Water", "H₂O" and the Twin Earth thought experiment, with which I presume you're familiar. I hope it's obvious enough why I would bring that up here, even if we'd disagree about its relevance to "woman"/"female" and any biological characteristics.) H Remster (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

In an odd way, I suppose I do see a tangential relevance of the thought experiment, in that I do believe that on our earth, human beings have been carrying around gender identities without realizing that we were doing so until recently. These identities have always been roughly as relevant and necessary to our lives as water, regardless of our conscious knowledge of them or our theories of their formation. However, I am fairly confident that this is not a point the analytical philosophers were hoping to make. Newimpartial (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed it isn't. (In case it's not obvious after all why I brought this up, I'll explain that it's to illustrate why the comparative modernity of biology (the science) isn't a barrier to "woman"/"female" having a biologically determined reference that pre-dates modern biology - just as the comparative modernity of chemistry isn't a barrier to "water" having a chemically determined reference that pre-dates modern chemistry. Nothing more exciting than that.) H Remster (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I got all of that. But what struck me upon reflection is that it is equally true (and arguably more relevant) that the comparative modernity of "gender identity" as a sociological and psychological concept is equally not a barrier to "woman" having a reference determined by social role definition and/or personality psychology - determinations that predate the modern social sciences in essentially the same way as the chemically-determined reference for water predates modern chemistry. Newimpartial (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I mistakenly thought you were making a point about the relative importance of gender identity and water to humans, rather than a point about the relative importance of gender identity to "woman"/"female", on the one hand, and H₂O to "water", on the other hand. H Remster (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that when you stated "the controversial terms ('woman', 'female', etc.) have both older, biological senses and newer, sociological senses.", you meant that "woman" originally referred to cisgender women (the etymology and all that shows this), not to people assigned male at birth, and that the newer, sociological senses pertain to the topic of transgender (including non-binary) people. Like I stated with this edit at the Stonewall riots article, "some of the identities that exist now did not exist back then. Gender variant people existed, but they didn't go by a lot of the terms we see today." We discuss the origins of the term transgender in this section of the Transgender article. And as we can see, the origins can be described as relatively new...depending on how one defines "relatively new." There is no doubt that transgender people existed before then, but we weren't calling people transgender, or trans women or trans men, or non-binary. And, yes, I know the history of the third gender concept. Correct me if I'm wrong about what you meant. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

That's quite close. I can certainly accept that people who we retrospectively call "transgender" have existed for far longer than the word "transgender" has existed. My only reservation is about the phrase "assigned 'male' at birth", which makes it sound like an arbitrary decision, as opposed to a (merely) conventional one. What I envisage - I've no desire to impose this on anyone else - is that "woman" originally signified a biological category, even though the distinguishing features of that category were unknown. (The example of "water" is helpful here: "water" has always referred to a particular chemical substance, even though we haven't always known that the substance in question is composed of molecules each containing one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms.) What's changed - I'm still just explaining what I envisage - is that the biological distinction is now considered by many to be sociologically insignificant, and so "woman" has become used to signify a sociological category, which maps only imperfectly onto the biological category. H Remster (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thing is, the actual evidence is equally compatible with the idea that "man" and "woman" originally signified functional or even grammatical categories rather than biological ones. We don't have any support for one "vision" against the other, which is why people's positions on this question end up being determined more by ideology than anything else. As far as sex assignment is concerned, it seems likely that this terminology and the practices it involves are a more accurate account of traditional or conventional practices than more strictly biological conceptions of sex difference. Newimpartial (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Any recommended reading on the "actual evidence"? This is a genuine request. I've no axe to grind on this issue and expressed my views only because I thought I was being asked about them. (What motivated me to create this section really is the contradiction that I noticed while browsing.) Let me just point out that the views I've expressed are purely about semantics. I can see that the article on sex assignment covers the practice of judging a person's sex at birth, but this doesn't necessarily address the semantic issue. Consider the case of water again: historically, water will have been identified by being the wet stuff found in rivers and lakes (or something like that); but it doesn't follow either that just any wet stuff found in rivers or lakes is water, or that water can't be found in conditions or locations that we haven't yet considered. H Remster (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't have readings to assign, but the main disciplines that have something to say about this are anthropology and archeology, linguistics and etymology. And on that last point, "female" and "male" have mostly biological etymology, but "woman" and "man" come from references to social roles and relationships. The whole territory is somewhat obscure. Newimpartial (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I had a feeling there would be an article about this: Etymological fallacy. As you will have gathered, I have no strong views on the question of which usages came first, and in fact I regret having written "both older, biological senses and newer, sociological senses" rather than simply "both biological senses and sociological senses", since the order of temporal precedence matters not one jot to the issue at hand. It's my error, and one that might end up getting the whole section deleted. H Remster (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm referring to the first link, i.e. hyperlink, in the first sentence of the article. H Remster (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 09:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I've restored the link, noting that the Woman article itself explicitly scopes itself as encompassing trans women (and, as discussed on that article's talk page, it's ironic that some people try to either use or take "female" as an exclusionary definition of woman when trans women feel it applies perfectly well to them, since the word "female" too can and often does refer to gender). -sche (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, it has been broken again. (Note: As a long serving wikieditor, I understand what is going on here. Long term watchers of this page are just enforcing community consensus in this area, and all the rather premptory and rude appearing responses from them to newbies are the result of long term "fedupness" with newbies criticising. Get used to it watchers. Trying to explain this fact about wikipedia is something you should become expert at, because it makes little sense to a newbie, or anybody with an ordinary science education.) -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 09:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

lol. -sche (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm neither surprised nor bothered by the rudeness, but I appreciate the comment. I did notice that the Woman article contains the phrase "trans women", but also that it starts with the sentence "A woman is a female human being" and links to a page that defines "female" in biological terms. So either the Woman article is self-contradictory, or it's using the phrase "trans women" in a sense that doesn't entail that trans women are women. Perhaps it's the Woman or the Female article that needs to be amended. H Remster (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Have you read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? It may help. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 10:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Just read it. What is it you're suspecting me of? H Remster (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing at all. I'm trying to point out that wikipedia sometimes gets it wrong and there is nothing to be done about it. What is happening here is set in stone by Misplaced Pages Policy and it doesn't make much sense to many people who come up against it. The examples and arguments presented by Lenny on this page make perfect sense, and yet they do not carry weight in this discussion because of Policy. The phrase "Tilting at windmills" comes to mind. The only way to get around this is to change Policy, and we wont be able to do that here. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 10:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Roxy the dog for acknowledging that the arguments I presented make perfect sense. I understand there is a policy issue. CC: -sche Georgia guy Mathglot

Still not quite seeing it. I'm not going to lose any sleep over how Misplaced Pages defines "trans woman", "woman" and "female", but I'm surprised mutual consistency isn't a requirement. My own preference would be a prominent link to the article on semantic change, but it would take a braver person than me to tamper with this article. H Remster (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Enforcing consistency across pages would be a nightmare. This is by no means the most glaring example of inconsistency across pages even in the area of transgender topics. If you want a real example of inconsistency, try to figure out what Misplaced Pages thinks about Blanchard's transsexualism typology, noting that any article such as the current one that mentions gender dysphoria contradicts it.

(If you want me to spoil the ending: any article that mentions the typology will implicitly endorse it while it's mentioning it, but usually in language that is very clearly the result of a contentious edit war, and then every article or piece of an article that does not explicitly mention it, such as this one, will implicitly endorse gender dysphoria or some variant as the cause of transness and not even take Blanchard's typology particularly seriously.) Loki (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Interesting example. However, the difficulty of enforcing consistency across pages in general doesn't prevent it from occurring in a particular case, and what makes the present case glaring is the sequence of linked first sentences:

Trans woman: "A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth."

Woman: "A woman is a female human being."

Female: "Female (symbol: ♀) is the sex of an organism, or a part of an organism, that produces non-mobile ova (egg cells)."

The only way that all three of these sentences could be true is if a trans woman was a human being about whose biological characteristics a mistake had been made at birth, which obviously isn't the intention. This is why it would make sense for at least one of the links to be broken (Trans woman -> Woman, or Woman -> Female), or at least one of the articles to be rewritten. H Remster (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem link is the female one at woman, since the scope of the former article is narrowly biological while the second article is much broader in scope. However. OWNership issues make this nearly impossible to fix IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know about the ownership thing. H Remster (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, I'm not sure what policy you are referring to. WP:Consensus is policy. But like I've stated above on this talk page, there actually wasn't consensus on whether to use "is a woman" or "identifies as a woman" in the big RfC that took place in 2018. And either way, consensus can change. Lenny230 has actually done a great job at compiling reliable sources that support "identifies as."

H Remster, to reiterate what I stated to Lenny230 in the #Misplaced Pages in English imposes a definition out of sync with the one used by Misplaced Pages in other languages section above, you could easily start a new WP:RfC on this matter and advertise it at Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view and/or even at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) since it relates to our WP:Neutral point of view policy and interpreting it appropriately. When advertising it, you have to keep what WP:APPNOTE states in mind. For example, you can ping all of the editors previously involved with the aforementioned RfC, but your wording has to be neutral. All this stated, I did note in the #It should not be stated that transwomen are women section above that "I wouldn't advise to pursue this since taking it on will be very draining and another standstill is the likely result." As for the Female article focusing on biology, it's not like that because of WP:OWN. It's that way because it's standard practice for our WP:Anatomy, WP:Biology and WP:Med articles to focus on biology and/or medical aspects, with little, if any, cultural content or any cultural bent. For example, as seen at WP:MEDSECTIONS, we may have a "Society and culture" section. But the Female article should not become another Woman article, just like the Sex article should not become another Gender article. There is enough about gender in the Woman, Gender, Gender role, Gender variance, and other gender-focused articles. And as for Blanchard's typology, it does not discount gender dysphoria, but this isn't the talk page to discuss that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

F22, I was hoping you'd turn up, I'm not comfortable in this discussion. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 18:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen, your reason is different from Newimpartial's but the consequence is the same: if the Female article is based on a biological definition of "female" but the Woman article isn't based on a biological definition of "woman", then there's no sense in linking from one to the other in an opening sentence that reads "A woman is a female human being", because it will exclude any women (non-bio) who aren't females (bio), and include any females (bio) who aren't women (non-bio). I appreciate, though, that this might be a discussion for the Talk page of the Woman article. H Remster (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The Woman article is based on a biological definition of "woman." It begins that way. However, as also pointed out at the Woman talk page, biology is not the only thing to consider when defining "woman." So gender/gender identity is also relevant there. There is currently a discussion going on now about it at the Woman talk page: Talk:Woman#Self-contradiction in intro. A permalink for it is here. But as noted there and below, this has been rehashed to death. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Then the Woman article either contradicts itself or contains an opening statement that it subsequently rescinds. What a mess. I understand why you'd want to leave it alone. H Remster (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Something can have more than one definition or aspect and therefore that other definition or aspect not be a contradiction. As seen in that current discussion at the Woman talk page, editors have argued that it's not a contradiction. And you can see -sche pretty much argue the same with this edit here at the Trans woman talk page. There will be people who will feel that it's a contradiction, while others won't feel that it's one. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, of course. But in the present case, the (purported) lexical ambiguity of "woman" is obscured by the article's beginning "A woman is a female human being", rather than "Some women are female human beings" or "Most women are female human beings" or "A woman is typically a female human being". H Remster (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

As noted elsewhere, everyone tends to agree that "a woman is a female human being", but not that "a woman is a female human being". Reliable sources have established that "female" can refer to chromosomes, or physiology, or gender, or gender identity, or any of the above (and except for the occasional digression about Vulcans, we are always talking about human beings in this context). The current state of the female article, however, collapses this ambiguity as it is dealing with a biological concept that crosses species and genera. The essential "contradiction", if there is one, is created by the wikilink and not by the word "female". Newimpartial (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, that's my point. Inasmuch as I care about any of this, it's about the contradiction (in the strict logical sense - it doesn't require quotation marks) caused by the sequence of hyperlinks. H Remster (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

We've had this discussion for years (see Talk:Trans_man/Archive_2#Wording_in_lede from 2 years ago, as well as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and this giant RfC). Consensus can change, yes, but I honestly worry that the umpteenth exhuming of the horse carcass (aka the lead sentence) will result in a firewood shortage. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The definition "Female (symbol: ♀) is the sex of an organism, or a part of an organism, that produces non-mobile ova (egg cells)" seems to exclude women born without a uterus or ovaries or menopausal women, which can not be right? Female is more than just biology. Female also refers to gender, unless the object is to deny that genders exist. ~ BOD ~ 20:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

In our articles (not just our biology, anatomy, and medical articles), we usually begin with the typical/most common definition or aspect (as relayed in the overall literature). We note exceptions or atypical facets, such as intersex aspects, after that. That is per WP:Due. Exceptions do not make the rule. We know, for example, that while humans typically have five digits, this is not always the case, which is why the Hand article states that humans normally have five digits. Furthermore, the Female article is not just about humans; it's also about non-human animals. And the topic of gender is firmly within the realm of humans (regardless of some who assign gender to non-human animals in some way). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22 Frozen. Exceptions do not make the rule. A definition always starts with the typical aspect that the general understanding and common sense indicate. Unfortunately there are still users who tend to believe that if a definition does not include all the possible variations and exceptions to the rule then there is some sort of discrimination or intentional exclusion.

If this was true then Misplaced Pages would not even be able to say "A human being has one head" because they will say that it is discriminatory against people who are born with two heads. --Lenny230 (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The greater problem with the article on Female is that it appears to be barely sourced. It's possible further sourcing (or, basically any sourcing) will naturally resolve the contradiction. Loki (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Lenny230, I understand and agree that a "definition always starts with the typical aspect that the general understanding and common sense indicate". However, if the definition doesn't actually include the word "typical" or some synonym of it, it usually describes the typical aspect by means of a paradigm term - a term that contains typicality as part of its meaning. So, for example, the definition of "human" might begin "A human is a monocephalus" or "A human is a biped", because (a) a typical human has one head and two feet, and (b) "monocephalus" (if I haven't just made that word up) and "biped" mean, respectively, "member of a class of animals that typically have one head" and "member of a class of animals that typically have two feet". But it wouldn't begin "A human is an animal that has one head" or "A human is an animal that has two feet", because "animal that has one head" and "animal that has two feet" aren't paradigm terms. H Remster (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

H Remster While I acknowledge that my example about the human with two heads is extreme my point is that it is only acceptable to have a definition without references when this definition is unquestionable by the facts and reality (like for example the definition used in the human article). If the definition is questionable and debatable then it should have references. That is why I challenge the definition used in this article. The phrase "a trans woman is a woman" is a source of endless debate and is there in the article without any references. --Lenny230 (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Lenny230 I agree with you. I think it's possible you've missed the thrust of this section, and I don't blame you for that: it's become long. H Remster (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2020‎ (UTC)

This whole section started as a rhetorical question without any explicit suggestions to improve this article and so far it has not improved from there. Leaning toward seeing this all as a big WP:NOTFORUM issue that is more about airing personal opinions and snark than actually improving the article. Rab V (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Please try to comment on specific points instead of denigrating the section or the other contributors. H Remster (talk) 09:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

H Remster, no, on the contrary. Rab V did not denigrate the section, she is merely upholding Misplaced Pages's principles of what a Talk page is for. If this section is found to be a discussion of various editors' general opinions about the topic, rather than a concrete discussion of how to improve the article, then the whole discussion could be collapsed, or in egregious cases, even removed, per WP:NOTFORUM. Your reply to Rav V appears to be based on your misunderstanding of what a Talk page is for. Please refrain from criticizing editors who are simply upholding policy. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot, then Rab V either hadn't read the thread or hadn't understood it. I'm inclined to go with the latter, since she deleted the original version of my (very short) original post soon after I posted it. The sole purpose of this section is to discuss the best way to resolve the logical contradiction generated by the links between the three articles, and that has nothing to do with editors' general opinions about the topic. Even where the discussion might appear to you to have broadened, my sights have remained set on the ultimate goal of resolving the contradiction. H Remster (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The so-called "logical contradictuon" exists on the Woman page with its use of "Female" rather than "female", and can therefore not be fixed from here. Newimpartial (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

H Remster, there is no Misplaced Pages policy that calls for resolving logical contradictions between different articles. That may be your purpose here, but it's not what Talk pages are for. When reliable sources offer differing definitions in the real world, whether inconsistent, illogical, or contradictory, then Misplaced Pages articles may reflect those differences if appropriately sourced in their respective articles about related, but differing topics. This Talk page is about improving this article, and a focus on resolving contradictions in other articles that reflect real-world sources is out of scope for this Talk page, and is collapsible per WP:NOTFORUM if this discussion runs off the rails. Let's stick to improving this article, and not worry about the others. Do you think the reliable sources are misquoted here, or not used in proper proportion? Mathglot (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Missing ping. Mathglot (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, the logical contradiction is generated by the conjunction of the first sentences of the three articles and could be resolved by the removal of any one of them from the conjunction (i.e. by the removal of hyperlink). I understand your preference and your reasons for having it - we've discussed it a bit above - but this is precisely what's up for grabs in this section. H Remster (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is going to change a statement that has survived the RfC process because of an alleged logical tension in another article. That just isn't in the cards. Newimpartial (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

"Logical contradiction"? "Conjunction of the first sentences"? I think I see what's going on here. You believe in a world where definitions are all internally consistent, all agree with each other, and form part of a perfectly developed whole, sort of what like Whitehead and Russell attempted to do by putting science and mathematics on a formal basis with their Principia Mathematica, am I right? However, we live in a messy, illogical, imperfect world, where even the hard sciences don't all agree with each other, let alone social science, history (who won the War of 1812?), or any of the myriad (6M) topics at Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and to the extent that each article follows policies of Verifiability and employs reliable sources in proper proportion, differences among articles may be apparent. This is an inevitable consequence of the world being illogical and inconsistent, and not a perfect, mathematical creation. If Misplaced Pages accurately reflects that inconsistency, then we have done our job well. By focusing on this article, on this talk page, we are doing our job. By trying to foist an artificial consistency that does not reflect the real world, we are abandoning our role, and placing ourselves as arbiters of how the world oughta be, instead of how it is, messy, illogical, and inconsistent though it be. Can we get back to improving this article, now? Mathglot (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

"m I right?". No, not in the slightest. I tried to explain this in my last post addressed to you, but I seem to have failed to post it. My gripe isn't with contradictions between articles. I'm happy with those, for all the reasons you've given. My gripe is with links between mutually contradictory articles or, more precisely, what I imagine to be the purpose of those links. I imagine that the purpose of linking from the first sentence of the present article to Woman, and from the first sentence of Woman to Female, is to refine the reader's understanding of "trans woman" as used in Trans woman, and "woman" as used in Woman. But if I'm wrong about that, it's as you were. H Remster (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Earlier today I edited my original post in blissful ignorance of the protocol. Sorry, all. H Remster (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

You can repair that, even after the fact, by following the recommendations at WP:REDACT. Mathglot (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

This issue has been raised several times in the Talk page but has not been addressed. There are several factual errors in this article.

Trans women are biologically male. They carry XY chromosomes and exhibit functional characteristics. They are not and can not be female. Trans women can change their expressed gender but not their biology.

This article as drafted contains several items of misinformation. For instance, it is suggested that human beings do not know the sex of their offspring and randomly assign a sex at birth. This is false.

A human has a sex at the moment of conception. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181215141333.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/Sexual_differentiation_in_humans

This is fact except for a very small percentage of intersex conditions, however trans women are not intersex.

The sex of a foetus can be observed at almost any point before birth given modern technology. This is fact. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5958571/

It is therefore incorrect to say that sex is assigned at birth. Sex is not assigned; it is an immutable part of the body that occurs at conception.

Anything in an article on wikipedia which states anything other than fact (or at least footnotes that this is an opinion held by a small portion of the populace) calls the entire worth of wikipedia into question.

This page is subject to what I would call "identity politics capture", in that persons who have an interest in the subject matter and a minority opinion have this page under their control. I believe this is against the philosophy of wikipedia and should be addressed. --Stopbeingobtuse (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Stopbeingobtuse 13.07.20

Please review WP:MEDRS, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:STICK. A few links to WP:PRIMARY sources and your own WP:SYNTH do not mean there are "factual errors" in the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, where is the consensus documented? H Remster (talk) 10:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

RfCs, other discussions on related pages, talk archives, etc. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

So how is it established that consensus has been achieved? Is there a voting mechanism or something? H Remster (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@H Remster: Please refer to my comment made on 19:04, 6 July 2020 in the conversation you started on the topic (the above section). EvergreenFir (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Thank you. It's the link to the "giant RfC" that I needed. I wonder how representative the participants were of language users in general. H Remster (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@H Remster: Here you go: . EvergreenFir (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: It's OK, I'd already found that in your 6th July comment. I was just confirming that it answered my question. H Remster (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Congrats on your very first contribution to Misplaced Pages. I've left you a welcome message at your Talk page. There are already 41 footnotes in the article, which for 10k of readable prose, is pretty decent, so I don't know what you mean by an "opinion held by a small portion of the populace". As for sex assignment at birth, I think perhaps you are not familiar with the term; for a more detailed treatment, see Sex assignment. As far as your comment about "a minority" having the page "under their control", I don't know what you mean, since anyone can edit this page. In particular, the current state of the article represents the contributions of over 200 editors over a period of thirteen years. You're welcome to contribute, too, although there might be a minimum wait period for brand-new editors editing in controversial topic areas like this one, I'm not quite sure. But why not start off in a less controversial area of the encyclopedia, while you learn about editing here? It would be much easier. Mathglot (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I may not have made changes to a Misplaced Pages entry before but I am no neophyte. 41 footnotes to articles out of many hundreds of thousands of scientific articles about sex is not a consensus especially if the footnotes are carefully cherry picked or misleading. I understand sex "assignment" as a view held by a very few people who tend to be activists in this area, also I am commenting on this Misplaced Pages entry, not that one. 200 contributors who all believe the same false thing still results in a false thing. And I'm not sure I care about your suggestion that I go away and edit something else. As you say - anyone can edit - therefore I can edit. I'm here. Why not address the points I raised?

Point one: (1) Human beings have a sex at conception. (2) This can be observed at almost every point before birth. Ergo, sex exists before birth. Human beings do not have a sex picked out of a hat at birth.

Point two: (1) Human beings have a sex at conception. (2) Sex is determined by chromosomes, and males have XY, I can cite all this but hopefully people have taken a biology class at some point in their lives? (3) Humans do not change their sex chromosomes at any point in their lives. Ergo, males do not change sex. They are not female at any point.

Please notice I am not discussing gender at this point, which is a separate issue. This Misplaced Pages article should state very clearly for the avoidance of all doubt that trans women are born male but identify as a different gender that does not align with their sex. They are not female and this should not be confused. Stopbeingobtuse (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

As soon as anyone starts making unfounded rants and assumptions against other editors they loose the argument. Misplaced Pages:Civility is at the core of Misplaced Pages's code of conduct and one of its five pillars. When editors show mutual respect, they are respected more.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodney (talk • contribs)

"I understand sex "assignment" as a view held by a very few people who tend to be activists in this area..." The terminology of sex assignment is standard and has been for decades, long predating the modern understanding of transgender people. It is used throughout peer-reviewed medical literature and by major professional organizations (APA, CDC) in plain-language resources for the general public. Even the article abstract you linked above uses it (though it uses gender in a context where sex would be more common): "...the fetal gender was assigned as male if the angle of the genital tubercle to a horizontal line through the lumbosacral skin surface was >30°..."--Trystan (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Stopbeingobtuse: Trystan is right to point our your incorrect statement regarding sex assignment at birth. I commented on Talk:Sex assignment back on 03:10, 31 August 2019 noting that the following use this phrasing: American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association (2), American Psychiatry Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, CDC, NIH. I can only assume the list has grown if I were to spend the time finding more examples. To suggest this is a minority view is fallacious. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a semantic dispute masquerading as a metaphysical one. The problem is that the key terms - "woman", "female", "gender" - are ambiguous. Some people use them principally to denote sociological classes or categories, while others (including me) use them principally to denote biological classes or categories. For the latter, this makes the unannotated clause "A trans woman is a woman" at first sight extremely puzzling, because it reads as if a trans woman is a person who's undergone some sort of chromosomal transformation (if chromosomes are what the reader takes to be the relevant biological feature). However, the easy solution, namely to add a clarificatory footnote or parenthesis, won't be applied, and I strongly suspect the reasons for this to be political. If you call chickens "tables", then it is easy to prove that tables lay eggs. (Norman Malcolm) H Remster (talk) 08:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

H Remster and Stopbeingobtuse: I'm not sure what part of, "we follow the reliable sources on a topic" the two of you don't understand. The reliable sources on Trans women use the concept of sex assignment. Also, Remster, you don't get to choose the sense in which the reliable sources on Trans women use the word "woman", which is more likely to be about gender and gender identity and less likely to be about chromosomes, hormones, anatomy or whatever is passing for "biology" for you this morning. Newimpartial (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

This is one of the rudest comments on this page. Civility and NPA have gone out of the window, and this is me talking. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 11:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: Are you referring to Remster or Newimpartial? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

"... or whatever is passing for "biology" for you this morning." I think this all started when they allowed universities to teach social science. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 18:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

And you don't think that Remster constantly sliding from "biology" in general to a definition in terms of "chromosomes" and back isn't a (largely unconscious) reiteration of the same form of ambiguity they allege the article to have concerning "woman"? Perhaps Remster intended to illustrate some psychological process or other, IDK; if so, I'm afraid the satire (?) went over my head. Newimpartial (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The OP had it right. Stop being so obtuse. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 19:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: You said "I think this all started when they allowed universities to teach social science.". Well, this is exactly what social sciences study. If you dislike a field of science, you're welcome to express that. But that doesn't change what this page is about or the sources we use. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It isn't exactly empirical though, is it? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 19:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: It's not astrophysics, but it does employ the philosophy of science and the (post-)positivist views that we can approximate human behavior through scientific research and modeling. Generally, it takes probabilistic statistical approaches given that behavior is not deterministic. It further attempts to parsimoniously describe and explain human and social phenomena. But that's a topic for my research methods class, not this talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Roxy, the OG OP was making ideological rather than factual statements, so for you to say they "got it right" is essentially a pseudo-statement. Newimpartial (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Congratulations on utterly misreading my comment. H Remster (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I can do a bit better: The sentence "A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth" reads, to someone for whom the principal usage of "woman" is biological, as if a trans woman is either a person who's undergone some sort of biological transformation or a biologically female person whose biology was misidentified at birth. H Remster (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

OK merry folks of Misplaced Pages land, lets dial back a bit. If an an article is about transgender issues, then article about about trans women is simply going to be about gender not sex biology. Biology is a whole different topic, not all 'biological' women are the same, nature is a rainbow of variety. ~ BOD ~ 12:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bodney: Do you not think there's a standard usage of "gender" as synonymous with "sex" (as well as the asynonymous usage)? I agree, by the way, that if it's clear to the reader that "gender" is being used in the sociological sense, then there's no case to answer. H Remster (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

What I took be the relevant part of your comment was, others (including me) use them principally to denote biological classes or categories. For the latter, this makes the unannotated clause "A trans woman is a woman" at first sight extremely puzzling, because it reads as if a trans woman is a person who's undergone some sort of chromosomal transformation (if chromosomes are what the reader takes to be the relevant biological feature). I don't think I misread it. And according to your most recent comment, even if the article specified that transgender is about gender, it would also need to specify that by gender it really means gender and not a circumlocution for sex. Ay, caramba. Newimpartial (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: I've clarified the sentence you've quoted in an additional comment, which I'm afraid crossed with yours. I don't recognise what you've said about my "most recent comment" as a characterisation of anything I've actually said, so it's hard for me to respond to it. H Remster (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to start using "woman_bio", "female_bio", "gender_bio", "woman_soc", "female_soc", and "gender_soc" to try and get round the lexical ambiguity of these words in this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H Remster (talk • contribs) 13:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

That's great, but the subscripts you use in your private language are unlikely to become relevant to this article. As far as your "clarification" is concerned, the thing is, we follow the sources, and the sources for "trans woman" do not follow your usage in which the primary meaning of "woman" is "biological" (by which, apparently, today you mean "chromosomal"). In following the sources, an article on Misplaced Pages on this topic will necessarily be primarily engaged with gender rather than sex, per policy. Your reluctance to acknowledge this policy matter is getting perilously close to civil POV pushing, if it isn't there already. Newimpartial (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it worth trying to get the clarity of meaning expressed by the Remster, into our article, which at the moment, doesn't say what the "consensus" on this page says it says. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: First, I'm not proposing using subscripts in the article. I'm proposing using them in this discussion to indicate concisely whether I'm using the words in their biological or their sociological senses. This is to avoid remarks like "t would also need to specify that by gender it really means gender and not a circumlocution for sex", which disregards the lexical ambiguity of the word "gender" and attributes to me a thought I never expressed. Second, I didn't say that the primary meaning of "woman" is biological, nor did I mean to imply it (although once I saw the way your responses were heading, I suspected that might be your interpretation). I was talking about the reader's default understanding of a lexically ambiguous word. Here's an analogy. If a British person asks a British person "Do you like football?", the hearer's default understanding is likely to be that the question is about association football (soccer); but if an American person asks an American person ostensibly the same question, the hearer's default understanding is likely to be that the question is about American football. This doesn't imply that either hearer thinks that one usage is correct and the other incorrect, that one is better than the other, that one is more important than the other, or that one preceded the other historically. What it implies is that in some contexts, e.g. where a British person is talking to an American person, it would facilitate communication to disambiguate the word "football". If you don't think the same principle applies to Trans woman, I'm wondering who and what you think the article is for. H Remster (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

First of all, Remster, the etymology of your "gender_bio" is precisely as a circumlocution for sex - prior to people feeling the need for this circumlocution, gender was a grammatical and/or social science concept, but never a "biological" one. You didn't have to be thinking of it as a circumlocution for it to actually be one.

The context of the current article is to discuss the concept and reality of Trans woman, which is primarily a gender identity, and so it is going to use for the most part a set of meanings associated with gender, and when it deals with anatomy etc. it is going to use terms arising from its own field, e.g., Sex assignment. The article American football is only tangentially engaged in any form of disambiguation, and I don't see why this article is any different in its relationship to its audience than American football is. Trans woman is a term referring to a rather limited set of phenomena, and is not notably ambiguous IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

And yet the first line of the article, in fact the first six words say "A Trans woman is a woman ..." -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

WDYM? "Woman" is, in everyday language, the term for the female gender. Newimpartial (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

What else is it a word for? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 16:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

That depends on the context, doesn't it? The current article concerns a gender identity. In another context, a "woman" could be a female dwarf or Vulcan, I suppose. Newimpartial (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Is a female human a woman? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 16:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yup. And in most contexts, a "female human" is defined by gender although, occasionally, as in "women's health", the concept has traditionally been defined by "biology" in some sense or other. Newimpartial (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

This is why I don't edit in this area normally. The logic of reality doesn't work. I'm going to stop climbing the Reichstag, put my Spider Man outfit back into the cupboard with the mothballs, check the pronouns on the Rachel Ivy article, and invite Martina and J.K. to lunch. bye. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 16:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: You may well be right about the etymology of "gender_bio". It seems doubtful to me that the use of "gender" as a circumlocution for biological sex is predated by social science, but I'm willing to take your word for it. However, I'm talking about meaning and not etymology, so, while interesting, the point is hardly relevant. On American football, have a look at how much argument there has been about whether American football is football; compare that with how much argument there has been here about whether trans women are women; and then consider whether that might be relevant in any way to the need for disambiguation here but not there. H Remster (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

American football is clearly not football, so I don't see why disambiguation would have been needed. Newimpartial (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It wouldn't. That's my point. (Ironically, though, there turn out to be a couple of pages dedicated to untangling "American football" and "Football in America".) H Remster (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

What puzzles me is that you know that Misplaced Pages offers guidance on WP:Ambiguity, you know that both the "..._soc" and the "..._bio" terms exist in modern English, you know that the first sentence of the article is open to misinterpretation, and you know that there have been dozens of arguments about that sentence, and yet you see no benefit to the article in a spot of light disambiguation. (I'm not, let me emphasise, proposing a re-wording of the sentence. WP:STICK and all that.) H Remster (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

And how, pray tell, would you propose to disambiguate that sentence without rewording either it or another article? Newimpartial (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

In the way that I actually did propose it in my first contribution to this section. Because I know you'll misrepresent me otherwise, whether accidentally or deliberately, let me make it clear that the contents of the square brackets in my first contribution to this section relate to the words immediately proceeding them, and not to the words immediately following them. H Remster (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Removing the link to Woman would add to, rather than reduce, ambiguity. Surely some mistake? Newimpartial (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It would indeed, which is one reason why I haven't proposed it in this section. Another is that the idea was already discussed and rejected in a different section over a week ago. H Remster (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

In my experience, when a discussion stops being about the article and what the sources say, and starts being about directly trying to convince other editors about what is actually true, it is no longer useful and we should stop. So, let's stop now. SBO had a very clear and direct question, we gave a clear and direct answer, and now there is no more use to this discussion. Loki (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's any disagreement here about what's actually true. The disagreement seems to be about whether there's a disagreement about what's actually true. H Remster (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Even worse. Please stop. Loki (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I think that the discussion here is central to improving the article, a million miles from notforum territory. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 19:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar: Way to miss the point. I want to discuss the article but am having to convince my interlocutor first that I don't dispute the facts. If I wasn't being challenged to do that, I'd willingly stop. H Remster (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Remster, that you "want to discuss the article" is, ahem, unproven. So far you have established that you want to discuss other articles, the ocean of language, and virtually everything else except this article. Roxy the dog, on the other hand, wants this article to be about something other than its actual topic, which I suppose is "about the article", just isn't really about improving the article as such. Newimpartial (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Eh, where have I tried to discuss (a) other articles or (b) the ocean of language in this section? I very much want to discuss whether the article would be improved by disambiguating "woman" in the first sentence. H Remster (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Jumping in to aggree with Newimpartial about this devolving into WP:FORUM and WP:STICK territory a long time ago. The section before this and this one are overloaded with personal opinions and arguments not based in RS. Highly suggest all editors take a step back and for new editors to take time working on less controversial areas to get a handle for how Misplaced Pages works. Rab V (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a personal opinion that you've spotted? I understand the need to steer clear of them. H Remster (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Remster, you are discussing other articles here, here, here, etc., ad infinitum. You are discussing the oceanic quality of language, or related aspects in this foray into private language, this observation about semantic and metaphysical disputes, and this metaphor about the meaning of "football", among other interventions. Perhaps you are still engaged in satire? Newimpartial (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The first three links are to comments made in a different section over a week ago. I've been educated about that in the interim. The other links are to comments aimed solely at getting you to stop misrepresenting me, except for the "observation about semantic and metaphysical disputes", which is an explanation of why I think clarification could improve the article and mitigate the WP:STICK problem. H Remster (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the requested edit would worsen rather than improve the article, as it involved WP:SYNTH and runs afoul of how RS typically ("proportionally", in the language of WP:WEIGHT) cover the subject, as well as past RfCs and discussions. (It is also not clear to me that some editors WP:NOTGETTINGIT or WP:FORUM-posting requires other editors to keep responding...?) -sche (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with that. I thought that was settled, both by this discussion and by the prior RfC(s). Anyone who wants to make an edit of this kind needs some damn good evidence that is substantially more convincing than anything prior RfCs and discussions have seen in support of this position. Loki (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Can someone please point me to the RfC where this has been discussed previously? I've found a lot of stuff about whether the clause "A trans woman is a woman" expresses a true proposition (the consensus is that it does) and a lot of stuff about whether the first sentence of the article needs to be rewritten (the consensus is that it doesn't), but nothing so far about the issue I've raised here. Obviously I'll leave this alone if I can see that it's already been put to bed. H Remster (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I tell a lie. I did find this, which makes a start, in the archives, but it was ignored in the subsequent responses: "... The point about words having multiple meanings would be insightful if the narrow meaning this word referred to was made more obvious. As was pointed out below by DIYeditor, anyone who is more familiar with the term woman referring to a female human will not understand that it is being used here to mean feminine gender identity. Since being a female human and having a feminine gender identity are not linked, these terms must be disambiguated. ..." Userwoman (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC) H Remster (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Userwoman's perspective, ahem, did not achieve consensus, perhaps because they did not recognize that having a female (not "feminine", which was a hilarious conceit of theirs) gender identity is one definition of "being a female human", as discussed above. Dredging the Talk page archives for previous FRINGE positions is not a policy-compliant use, Remster. Newimpartial (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

What have those observations to do with the very specific passage I quoted, or my reasons for quoting it, which can be gleaned from my preceding comment? This is the tactic you've employed throughout: misrepresent what I've said, bloat the thread, and encourage other editors to pile in with links to policies that are relevant to what you've said I said but not to what I actually said. H Remster (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The 2018 RFC found consensus for "assigned", the issue raised at the beginning of this section. There was no consensus on any other aspect, leaving the status quo in place. The above discussion strongly suggests nothing has changed since then.--Trystan (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Remster, "the very specific passage you quoted" used the concept/conceit "feminine gender identity" and suggested disambiguation here because this conceit "is not linked" with being a female human, although our previous discussion has shown that female gender identity is in fact one important meaning of "being a female human". That isn't "misrepresentation" - that is straightforward parsing of the "very specific passage" to show that its argument fails because its premises are false.

And as far as I know, I haven't linked any policies that are not relevant to precisely what you have said - that sounds like an unfounded accusation, and also a violation of the principle of "commenting on the contribution, not the contributor", which I have quite strictly followed in this discussion, even as your contributions, Remster, have veered into "civil" POV pushing territory. Newimpartial (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Your first paragraph. No, the very specific passage I quoted didn't do that. It used the hilarious phrase "feminine gender identity" as a synonym for "woman" in the sociological sense, and the phrase "female human" as a synonym for "woman" in the biological sense (which you accept exists, even though you don't like it), in an attempt to explain why someone who isn't already familiar with Transgender Theory might be confused by the first sentence of the article. What the writer didn't see coming is the response that "female human" isn't itself unambiguously biological.

Your second paragraph. It would indeed be an unfounded accusation if I'd made it. But I didn't, so I don't need to comment further. H Remster (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

So, Remster, you didn't make the accusation that I misrepresent what I've said, bloat the thread, and encourage other editors to pile in with links to policies that are relevant to what you've said I said but not to what I actually said (which clearly includes an accusation that, in my paraphrase, I linked policies that are not relevant to precisely what you have said) - oh, wait, you did.

And my suggestion would be, if you need to specify what Userwoman meant by "feminine gender identity" and also what they meant by "female human" and also invoke such additional concepts as "Transgender Theory" to provide context for the two - maybe you aren't actually better off dredging up old contributions so that you can rework them to make your argument for you. And for the record, I have nothing against "'woman' in the biological sense", so I hope mind reading is not a talent you are counting on for professional purposes. Newimpartial (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You're now misrepresenting what I've said immediately after quoting my exact words, and you'll get away with it, probably with thanks and congratulations. That's come achievement.

To save space, I'll just emphasise the relevant words: "... encourage other editors to pile in with links to policies that are relevant to what you've said I said but not to what I actually said".

"... so that you can rework them to make your argument for you". Nope, still not the reason why I dredged up the old contribution, which can still be gleaned from the comment that preceded the comment in which I did the dredging.

"And for the record, I have nothing against "'woman' in the biological sense". Thanks. It's helpful to have it in black and white, and I apologise for the mistake. H Remster (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Returning to the point, since you accept that "woman, "male" and "gender" all have biological as well as sociological uses in everyday English, why do you think the article wouldn't be improved by a clarificatory footnote? My reference points here are MOS:FIRST and WP:NOTES. H Remster (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Remster, given your acknowledgement of and respect for the ambiguity of language, you will presumably recognize when it is pointed out to you that your original quote is unclear whether the "links to policies" that are irrelevant to what you "actually said" are part of my encouragement of other editors to "pile in" or a result of said encouragement (in either case, an accusation that I deny). Your ambiguity in writing can scarcely be parsed correctly as my "misrepresenting" you, although it perhaps explains your use of that loaded term earlier in the discussion, if every time you have been unclear you feel that it is me "misrepresenting" you.

You might want to specify what you actually mean, then, instead of constantly referring back to what you said earlier and then accusing others of "misrepresenting" you. But marine mammals will be what they are. Newimpartial (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe unclear only to someone who's insensitive to the difference between "encourage other editors to pile in with links to policies" and "encourage other editors to pile in, with links to policies". I don't know. Either way, I accept the apology and would like to move on. The section on misrepresentation in WP:BULLY (don't take the title of the page to express how I feel) and the Misplaced Pages article on the principle of charity might help you in any future exchanges. H Remster (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You might want to consider the "principle of charity" the next time you are tempted to accuse another editor of "misrepresentation". This is also covered under the pillar of WP:AGF, BTW. Newimpartial (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Then you have my profuse apologies. I completely missed the assumption of good faith here and here, and I'll be careful to assume it from others in future. H Remster (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Sarcasm doesn't become you, Remster. If you can't see the difference between argumentation and "misrepresentation" or between apology and snark, then CIVIL has failed in this instance. Newimpartial (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

So returning to the point, since you accept that "woman, "male" and "gender" all have biological as well as sociological uses in everyday English – and commenters have repeatedly cited biology in explaining their confusion about the first sentence – why do you think the article wouldn't be improved by a clarificatory footnote? My reference points here are MOS:FIRST and WP:NOTES. (Question asked in good faith, naturally.) H Remster (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I simply haven't seen any explanatory note proposed that would actually improve the clarity of the article for most readers. And given the poor quality of discussion of "biology" on this talk page, I am skeptical about seeing one. But I would be happy to be disillusioned on this point. Newimpartial (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

An explanatory note wouldn't have to go into biology: we're not talking about "woman" in a technical sense used by biologists (I've no idea whether there is such a sense); we're talking about "woman" in a biological sense used by ordinary people. Recall the case of "water" and H₂O, where ordinary people were using "water" to refer to H₂O long before anyone knew the chemical composition of water (I don't mean to suggest that "woman" could ever be as sharply defined as that). So an explanatory note would just have to state plainly that "woman" was being used in a sociological sense rather than a biological sense. You never know, it might even discourage people from coming here and attempting to argue from biology that the first sentence of the article should be rewritten (again). H Remster (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

My impression is that vague hand-waves to "biology" might cater to the prejudices of some of WP's readers but are unlikely to provide them with relevant information. I am under the further impression that WP exists to reflect the consensus of reliable sources on a topic, not to cater to its readers' prejudices, but of course I may be proved wrong on that point as well. Newimpartial (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Two questions. 1. Why would this be catering to prejudices, rather than simply clarifying for the nonspecialist reader what the subject is? 2. What sort of thing would you (or WP) consider to be a reliable source on the matter of how the nonspecialist reader tends to understand the word "woman"? H Remster (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there a policy-relevant reason to care about (2)? Reception analysis is not generally something we do in the WP community AFAIK. As far as (1) is concerned, I am basing my interpretation on every single proposal I have seen on this issue - if you imagine a Cartesian conceptual space, all of them are much farther from the origin along the "catering to prejudice" axis than they are in the "clarifying" dimension, again, AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

1. Unlike WP:AGF, AFAICT doesn't feature in any Misplaced Pages principles, AFAICT. Besides, I'm not proposing adding a footnote to appease those who've had proposals for the first sentence rejected; I'm proposing adding a footnote to remove the confusion that (WP:AGF) has given rise to the proposals in the first place. 2. I don't know, but there is a section in the manual of style: MOS:FIRST. Have you in mind a policy that takes precedence over this guideline? H Remster (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

By the way, Wiktionary does a decent job with this, via Woman > Female > Gender. H Remster (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

If there is a MOS:FIRST justification for a footnote to the first sentence, I haven't seen it provided here. Newimpartial (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem, it's not very complicated. 1. People keep raising biological objections to the first sentence. 2. Therefore, either they have in mind a biological sense of "woman", or they believe that biology determines social role (etc.). 3. We know that "woman" has a biological sense, but we agree that the notion that biology determines social role is preposterous. 4. Therefore, the charitable interpretation is that people have in mind a biological sense of "woman" when they raise biological objections to the first sentence. 5. Therefore, one way of discouraging biological objections to the first sentence would be to explain that "woman" isn't being used in a biological sense. H Remster (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how that relates to MOS:FIRST in any way. Sorry. Newimpartial (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

That's OK, help is at hand: the fact that people repeatedly misunderstand that "woman" is being used in a non-bio sense indicates that the first sentence is failing to tell the nonspecialist reader what the subject is. H Remster (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's what's happening, though. I think some of our readers are disagreeing with the definition provided. I don't see evidence thA

At they have misunderstood it. Newimpartial (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

If a definition is provided and some readers disagree with it, then I'm on your side. But where is a definition provided? (I'll save the follow-up question for when I have an answer to that.) H Remster (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The definition is the first sentence of the lede. SMH. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

There's a definition of "woman" in the first sentence of the lead? RME. H Remster (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

People (present company excepted) are coming to this page to dispute the definition of "Trans woman", not the definition of "Woman". The reliable sources on Trans women do not generally define Woman, nor is it their job to do so. For us to do so on behalf of these sources as editors of this article would be original research and WP:SYNTH, and against policy. Newimpartial (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that you were referring to the definition of "trans woman" and not the definition of "woman". The rest of your reply is addressed to a straw man, so I'll let it pass without comment.

Assuming you're right that "some of our readers are disagreeing with the definition provided" – and I believe you are right about that – which word or phrase from "A trans woman is a woman" do you think readers who disagree with that part of the definition have a problem with? We can eliminate "A trans woman", since that's the definiendum. That leaves us with a choice of "is", "a" and "woman". H Remster (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

"is" Newimpartial (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

What, as opposed to "isn't"? H Remster (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I answered your question (there were three choices). Newimpartial (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, whatever your reason, you can't be right. Even the most prejudiced reader would expect a Misplaced Pages definition of "trans woman" to start "A trans woman is". Have another go. H Remster (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm serious. What "is" means in that context, per policy, is "is defined by the reliable sources as". But people come to this page to say, essentially, "no, it isn't", which means they haven't accepted the premise of what we mean by "is". Newimpartial (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I get it. Can you point me to the relevant policy, please? There's a whiff of a use-mention confusion here, but I'd like to see how the policy is worded before I comment further. H Remster (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to do that, sorry. The goalposts have moved far enough. Newimpartial (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Please stop, both of you. The chance the line would be changed was low in the beginning and is now in my estimation zero. Neither of you have any real reason to keep responding to each other. Climb down from the Reichstag and take off the Spiderman costumes. Loki (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Would the addition of a footnote really count as the line being changed? I thought the previous disagreements had been about the wording of the sentence. I'm more than happy to be corrected and to stop if so. H Remster (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to place the Spiderman reference (other than in the policy page). Where does it come from? H Remster (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@H Remster: WP:SPIDERMAN EvergreenFir (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Fathers 4 Justice. --Equivamp - talk 00:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments for heretofore uninvolved editors

The mostly two-editor impasse above seems to be a waste of time in having turned circular. However, if you ignore all the invective and stance-posing, the thread, in combination with #Proposal to use the definition of "Trans woman" used by leading institutions. above, especially, and also #Misplaced Pages in English imposes a definition out of sync with the one used by Misplaced Pages in other languages raises an interesting general point. This article clearly has a WP:ADVOCACY / WP:NPOV / WP:OR problem, and is not in-synch with either the rest of Misplaced Pages nor (more importantly) the most reliable medical sources, which are quite LGBTI+ friendly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

You are aware, SMcCandlish, that the Harvard source included in the "Leading institutions" list also provided a definition for "Trans woman" essentially identical to that currently used in the article? Newimpartial (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

And the 5 others listed by Lenny230 do not. So how do you square that with WP:Due weight? Why do you seize on the one and declare it the One True Definition? Crossroads 00:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

No, but I also think WP can do better than all-US, all university sources. Newimpartial (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

"No" doesn't make sense as an answer to either question. What specifically is "better" (i.e. not just equally good) than US sources? And how could there possibly be better sources than university and academic sources? Crossroads 01:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I do not "seize on the one and declare it the One True Definition". That's what my negation was supposed to mean. Also, when I say "WP can do better", I mean better than sources limited to one country, not better countries. :)

And I have nothing against academic sources, but that's not what these are. Among institutional sources, there are many that are typically better than universities IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but in the absence of any other sources, why are editors ignoring the WP:WEIGHT of the sources we have, and choosing the one over the five? And which institutions are better than universities? Crossroads 01:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

To answer your second question, government and civil society sources are the institutional ones I was thinking about. And about WEIGHT, I'm not sure you understand where that list came from. It wasn't built to be representative: an editor cherry-picked those sources based on the way they wanted the LEDE to open, except they kind of blew it when one of their cherry-picked sources turned out to be worded the way the article currently is.

Anyway, do we really need to RfC this *yet*again*? Because I don't see any consensus for change emerging on this Talk page any time soon. Newimpartial (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't think of any good reason to put government and civil society sources ahead of universities. While I've made my points, it's certainly far too soon for an RfC. That would require looking for and comparing more sources. Crossroads 02:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Did you look at the sources you listed? It's not just that only 1 agrees with the definition used, another is a dead link, another is a glossary that doesn't include the term trans woman, another is random resources put together by an lgbt club ie not RS and also doesn't define trans women, and the APA source also discusses trans women as women. Without a compelling reason it is likely too soon for another RFC on the same topic again.Rab V (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, one source agreeing with you doesn't do anything about the fact that most of them do not. When the sources conflict with each other, it's our "job" as encyclopedists to document that discrepancy, not to choose a side and fight for it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

But if you look at the available RS on this topic as a whole, the high-quality, recent sources use formulations like that currently opening the article. Don't assume what the list you cited contains, without looking at the wider environment. Newimpartial (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

"The mostly two-editor impasse above seems to be a waste of time in having turned circular." Thank you. On the basis of that lucid revelation, I shall now re-evaluate my whole life. H Remster (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Corrected opening statement

Obviously trans women are not women else they wouldn't be trans women they would merely be women and would have all the associated biology. Misplaced Pages is not the place for radical left-wing activism.

I'm actually unhappy with the 'assigned' bit in the wording too as that suggests there is some subjectivity to the process of identifying a person's biological sex.

But we follow the Reliable Sources, MrMiles, and not your personal opinions. Newimpartial (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

There was no source for the claim that trans women are actual women, in fact the statement contradicts Wiki's own article on women. And don't be silly, it is not an opinion that trans women are biological males.

Have you read even one of the previous discussions on this Talk page? Also, please sign your posts, MrMiles. Newimpartial (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, do you have a reliable source for the statement that trans women are women? Mr Miles (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for signing!

There are many; this is one of them. Newimpartial (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems from reading the previous thread that there are not many and you are giving undue weight to that article

And having looked at the link you provided, it makes no mention of biological sex except a brief discussion of the rare condition of intersex. It certainly provides no evidence for the claim that 'trans women are women' Mr Miles (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Several Wikipedians are trying harder and harder to say no to the opening statement that trans women are women. Why?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Because everyone know that trans women are obviously not actual women, they are men suffering from gender dysphoria, one treatment for which is for them to live as if they are women. Some extremists have distorted these facts to actually claim that trans women ARE women, for political reasons. Mr Miles (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

You mean, trangenderism is just a mental disorder?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Transgenderism is as I described. 'Mental disorder' can mean many things, you'd have to be very specific if you wanted to apply it to transgenderism.

I'm not asking you if it's the only mental disorder; I'm asking you if it's a mental disorder. Georgia guy (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

What I meant is, 'Mental disorder' can be defined in different ways. Transgenderism is not a mental disorder like schizophrenia is. But gender dysphoria is a diagnosed disorder that is located in the brain/mind.Mr Miles (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here's the governing RfC; as the comment in there clearly states please do not change that line without a consensus from the talk page. Loki (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a very wobbly close, dont you think? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 16:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the reliable source that states trans women are women. Mr Miles (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Dont hold your breath. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 16:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Mr Miles, where is your reliable source stating that when they use the term "Woman" (or in the discussion of Woman), the reliable sources are referring to "biological sex" (sic.). "Woman" (or Woman) is a much broader concept than "biological sex.

Also, I'd like to see a reliable source for the following statement, since it seems to reflect the POV you are trying to insert into the article: Because everyone know that trans women are obviously not actual women, they are men suffering from gender dysphoria, one treatment for which is for them to live as if they are women. Some extremists have distorted these facts to actually claim that trans women ARE women, for political reasons. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

That's just my opinion. What is not opinion is that women are biological females, and trans women are biological males. to claim otherwise is extraordinary, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.Mr Miles (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The statement you're saying is "not opinion", taken literally, would mean that all people are biologically cisgender and that transgenderism is something that doesn't exist biologically. Georgia guy (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

My statement doesn't contradict the existence of transgenderism. Trans women are biological males, ergo, some proportion of biological males are transgender. Mr Miles (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't contradict the existence of transgenderism; it contradicts the statement that it is biological. Georgia guy (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

No it doesn't, humans are biological entities, so trans humans are biological entities. The trans aspect of their humanity is biological like all other aspects. Mr Miles (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

And thus if transgenderism (which is what allows such people to exist) is biological, then whatever it means (and this is that they know themselves as women) is biological. Georgia guy (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the condition that leads a man to feel he is a woman is biological. But obviously, that doesn't mean that his feeling about himself is literally true in the face of his male biology. And anyway, many trans women don't believe themselves to be literally female; they just believe(/hope) their dysphorial will diminish if they can try to be female. Mr Miles (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

(please explain for me what cisgender means, it isn't a word I am familiar with. Thanks. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 17:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC))

There's an article Cisgender. Georgia guy (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Will the first sentence of the article as you wish it, suffice as an answer to that question? It ought to. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 16:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean? Newimpartial (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

You asked for evidence of the statement Mr. Miles Made and I pointed you to said evidence. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 17:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Mr Miles, you have stated, What is not opinion is that women are biological females, and trans women are biological males. Why do you think this article is discussing Woman from a biological standpoint? The terms Woman and Female, in reference to human beings, mean different things depending on context and indeed, are seldom defined except contextually. The term "biological female", to my knowledge, is never used by reliable sources on this article's topic, and so we should not introduce it - NOR and NPOV policies require this. Newimpartial (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• Start-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Low-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• Start-Class Women's History articles
• Low-importance Women's History articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women's History articles
• Unassessed Gender studies articles
• Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles