This is an archive of past discussions about Gender. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I made a number of edits to clarify distinctions between common and academic usages of 'gender', and to reflect the ideological, political and gynocentric nature of gender studies as shown by many authors on feminist studies as shown by Patia and Koerge, Hoff-Sommers, Nathanson and Young, Paglia and many others. Please make sure the facts match the statements here because anyone with even a little familiarity with the Women's Studies discipline can see that virtually all gender studies books/papers focus on the female gender and slander and/or ignore male gender studies. (drop in editor) 128.111.95.4706:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Content in question:
In common usage, the word gender often refers to the sexual distinction between male and female. By contrast, in the social sciences, "gender" denotes a social, cultural, or psychological condition, as opposed to that of biological sex. The contrast between common usage and academic usage can cause confusion where the term gender is used within a single context because in the common usage gender comes from nature whereas in the academic usage gender comes from nurture.
"The discipline of gender studies philosophizes, theorizes and politicizes[1] on the nature of the female gender as a social construct." This is a criticism of gender studies, and not a widely held one. This not a definition of gender. This comment is pure criticism - the other side is not mentioned nor is the fact that this is a criticism. This point of view would be invalidated by Gender Studies theorists like Judith Butler whose work is about men and women. For this reason I'm removing it. BTW please see WP:TDL - to do lists are not a place to make a point. An addition to it should represent a tentative consensus not a solo-run. For the moment I am removing the text beside your suggestion and adding a "?" becuase that needs to be discussed here first. For the record I'm not clear on its relevance in this section. --Cailil00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I pulled it off the "to do" list. It is common sense that a to do list will reflect noncontroversial or consensus-based things to do. The wording of this "to do" item, if nothing else, is certainly going to arouse controversy. If the anonymous editor sticks around, they can work on learning to phrase things neutrally, which will help everyone discuss the substantive points more effectively. Perhaps then we can all arrive at consensus on the substantive point that 128.111.95.47 is making. --lquilter01:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
related (nonconsensus) item pulled off of "to do" list
From the "to do" list, I pulled off this "to do" element. It's not based on consensus from the talk page, so please don't include it on a general "to do" list. I include it here for the record and for discussion:
Need a section on the political aspects of this word as a tool used by radical gender feminists in academia and elite mass media circles to control common usage of sex-related terms using controversial and untested (so-called) theories which are really inane (and recycled) ideologies used as a cover for female-as-'gender' politics. (see Spreading Misandry and Legalizing Misandry by Nathanson and Young where gender is shown as a "front" for militant man-hating by "fascist" ideological feminists)
(added by 128.111.95.47, 06;37 and 06:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC))
If consensus is reached, on this talk page, that this is a useful "to do" item, then we can put it back there. (Although I would suggest that there is a pretty obvious POV to the language, so it seems highly unlikely to go back in its current form.)
--lquilter01:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Just my thoughts here but the opening paragraph really needs to be reworked. The first sentance is good, the part about grammer is also good and the sentence about gender and sex not being synonymous was good. outside of that the introduction to the article seems to be a sort of soap box for those who wish to affirm gendr as being exclusively the result of nurture and not nature. The third sentance is particularly blatent in the regard and almost everything after the first sentance (with the exclusion of the part about language and sex vs. gender) is at best POV and at worst the advocating of an ideology. I'm not saying controversy over the word ought to be ignored, only that it ought to have its own section where the ideas of those who see gender as flowing from sex are also highlighted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.47.160.180 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC).
While I perfectly understand the use of this header in the article, I cannot help but feel it's a little huge and distracting at the top of the article, as it is. I was going to be bold and move it to the "see also", but found it wiser to come here and let everyone know. This was the solution adopted for the Antisemitism thingy in the Iranian Holocaust Conference, to everyone's contentment. Please respond.--SidiLemine11:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I am staunchly of the opinion that while this is not a main LGBT topic, and keep removing the template from the article, saying so. Unfortunately User:71.165.170.159 keeps readding it without so much as an edit summary of counter-argument, so until there is some I'm going to keep taking it away again. --90.240.102.4814:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with the comments above, "Gender" is a term used more widely than LGBT studies, Gender Studies, feminism or Sociology. No such header should be added to the article (whether LGBT, Gender Studies or Sociology) because it seems exclusive. Please refer to race or ethnicity for similar pages that are without any such headers.--Cailil01:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I was certainly taken aback to visit a page called 'Gender' that's flagged as a good article and to see it hijacked by a banner proclaiming "LGBT and Queer studies series / LGBT Portal" with a picture of a rainbow flag. Perhaps someone actually thinks this is a primary use for the term, but I'd be interested to know the rationale behind it. Xyster 29 May 2007
While I don't think anyone is trying to "hijack" the article - I have to state once again that headers like this should not be placed on this page. For the same reasons I mentioned in February. I am therefore removing the header. Please discuss before re-adding it. The same effect could be achieved by adding gender to the LGBT studies category--Caililtalk13:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The intro
I've just come round to this page after a few weeks absence and well, its quite different. Some of the edits need a little discussion - particlauarly the intro. (see diff). Anyone who knows me will probably at first be surprised at my objections, I began a major rewrite of the gender studies page in December so I do understand what i'm talking about. The changes to the lead paragraph made by Vita Baddenbold while accurately reflecting a gender studies point of view hamper this article rather than improve it. The reasons for this are as follows
Gender in the sense refered to in the new lead paragraph exclsuively refers to human gender relations - Gender in terms of this article is supposed refers to every use of that term.
The information in this current header would be suitable for a beginning a section about human gender not this whole article - it is not a suitable artcile leader because of its length (see lead section style guide).
The leader as it stands gives too much weight to one meaning of gender as opposed to the others.
As promised I've revised the introduction. I've also expanded the section Feminist Theory with information on how and why Gender studies regards 'gender' as a distinct term from sex. If also changed the section's title to In Feminist and Gender theory since feminist theory and gender studies are not one and the same thing. This edit retains the information about gender that Vita Baddenbold sought to add but makes sure that the lead paragraph is balanced and takes account of all meanings of teh term more equally--Cailil20:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Connectors and fasteners, etc.
Hello again. I don't disagree with the recent inclusion of these sections within "Gender in language", but personally, I would make a different classification:
Gender in language
Natural languages often make gender distinctions. These may be of various kinds:
The asymmetrical use of terms that refer to males and females. Concern that current language may be biased in favor of males has led some scholars in recent times to argue for the use of more Gender-neutral language in English and other languages.
Grammatical gender, the codification of gender into more or less general inflectional rules for turning a word that refers to a man into a word that refers to a woman, or vice-versa. For example, in the words actor and actress the suffix -or denotes "male person" (masculine), and the suffix -ress denotes "female person" (feminine). This type of inflection is very rare in modern English, but quite common in other languages, including most languages in the Indo-European family. Normally, English does not mark nouns or other words for gender, although it does express gender in the third person singular personal pronounshe (male person), she (female person), and it (object, abstraction, or animal), and their other inflected forms. In languages that have a different structure from that of English, some nouns, often many, may have a grammatical gender that does not relate to their meaning. For example, the Latin word Sol (Sun) is masculine and the word Luna (Moon) is feminine, but in German the opposite occurs: Sonne (Sun) is feminine, and Mond (Moon) is masculine. In Spanishmuchacha (girl) is feminine, but in German Mädchen, the corresponding word, is neuter, and in Irishcailín is masculine. This is why the terms "masculine" and "feminine" are generally preferred to "male" and "female" in reference to grammatical gender.
In electrical and mechanical trades and manufacturing, and in electronics, each of a pair of mating connectors or fasteners (such as nuts and bolts) is conventionally assigned the designation male or female. The assignment is by direct analogy with animal genitalia; the part bearing one or more protrusions, or which fits inside the other, being designated male and the part containing the corresponding indentations or fitting outside the other being female.
File:F plug.jpgAn electrical power male plug, left, and matching female socket, of a type common in many European countries.
Music
In western music theory, keys, chords and scales are often described as having major or minor tonality, sometimes related to masculine and feminine[citation needed]. By analogy, the major scales are masculine (clear, open, extroverted), while the minor scales are given feminine qualities (dark, soft, introverted). German uses the word Tongeschlecht ("Tone gender") for tonality, and the words Dur (from latin durus, hard) for major and moll (from latin mollis, soft) for minor.
In Taoism, yin and yang are considered feminine and masculine, respectively. In Christianity, God is described in masculine terms; however, the Church has historically been described in feminine terms.
Of one of the several forms of the Hindu God, Shiva, is Ardhanarishwar (literally half-female God). Here Shiva manifests himself so that the left half is Female and the right half is Male. The left represents Shakti (energy, power) in the form of Goddess Parvati (otherwise his consort) and the right half Shiva. Whereas Parvati is the cause of arousal of Kama (desires), Shiva is the killer. Shiva is pervaded by the power of Parvati and Parvati is pervaded by the power of Shiva.
While the stone images may seem to represent a half-male and half-female God, the true symbolic representation is of a being the whole of which is Shiva and the whole of which is Shakti at the same time. It is a 3-D representation of only shakti from one angle and only Shiva from the other. Shiva and Shakti are hence the same being representing a collective of Jnana (knowledge) and Kriya (activity).
Adi Shankaracharya, the founder of non-dualistic philosophy (Advaita–"not two") in Hindu thought says in his "Saundaryalaairi"—Shivah Shaktayaa yukto yadi bhavati shaktah prabhavitum na che devum devona khalu kushalah spanditam api " i.e., It is only when Shiva is united with Shakti that He acquires the capability of becoming the Lord of the Universe. In the absence of Shakti, He is not even able to stir. In fact, the term "Shiva" originated from "Shva," which implies a dead body. It is only through his inherent shakti that Shiva realizes his true nature.
This mythology projects the inherent view in ancient Hinduism, that each human carries within himself both male and female components, which are forces rather than sexes, and it is the harmony between the creative and the annihilative, the strong and the soft, the proactive and the passive, that makes a true person. Such thought, leave alone entail gender equality, in fact obliterates any material distinction between the male and female altogether. This may explain why in ancient India we find evidence of homosexuality, bisexuality, androgyny, multiple sex partners and open representation of sexual pleasures in artworks like the Khajuraho temples, being accepted within prevalent social frameworks.[2]
As far as I know everything in the quote is historically accurate and verifiable from manuscripts and artifacts. The last two sentences are Ashok Vohra's conclusions from the evidence.
The evidence says that Advaita teaches sexual complementarity -- that is, man and woman complete each other. They are not opposites like light and dark -- where one is, the other cannot be. Rather, together they make up a whole -- like hydrogen and oxygen in water.
Vohra makes two conclusions. First, he says that Advaita goes beyond gender equality by removing any distinction between them -- if they are not distinct, how can they be unequal? Second, he says that sexual freedom in India may follow from belief that there are no gender distinctions.
I am sure he is wrong on both counts. His conclusions do not follow from the evidence.
Regarding removing gender distinction, it is evident that quite the opposite is true. He himself says, "each human carries within himself both male and female." So he is not denying that male and female exist as identifiably different "forces". He accurately captures the Advaita idea that the two are intended to work together, but then he goes on to contradict himself.
His last sentence doesn't follow, because India is not the only culture with the sexual freedoms he mentions, nor the only one with Advaita ideals. Yin and yang in China. "The two will become one flesh" in Genesis. But homosexuality was despised in China and in Israel. On the other hand, homosexuality was a virtue in Greece and yet it was considered so, for the very reason that men were believed superior to women and so "man-love" was superior. I'm oversimplifying, but if we looked around a bit, we'd find people who say similar things.
But to bring this back to the article... I think spirituality and homosexuality are both things that should have short summaries in this topic. The whole point of homosexuality is finding erotic pleasure and general companionship within one's own gender. If there are no genders, there is no homosexuality, or all sexuality is homosexual. Homosexuality is driven by gender.
Spirituality is important because complementarity of the genders is a teaching in many spiritual belief systems. Many cultures have traditions of a first man and first woman. In several, their names mean "Strong" and "Beautiful". We are certainly not bound to respect these cultures by accepting their perceptions of gender, however they are verifiable and numerous enough to be significant, even if their antiquity is not considered by some to be enough to be notable. Alastair Haines19:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect definition of gender
Look in any dictionary and you will see that gender's primary definition is what this article has called "grammatical gender", Grammatical Gender should be the first definition under the title of gender, and gender/sex/gender studies should be in the seperate article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.65.161 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC).
Grammatical gender may be becoming somewhat dated as a concept. Confusion arises when people tie natural, sex-determined gender characteristics to what are in many cases, phonetically concordant noun classes, or systems of agreement between parts of speech. Sumerian had two semantically defined grammatical "genders" -- personal and impersonal. Some Australian aboriginal languages have a dozen "genders", distinguishing between people, food, plants, animals, weapons, etc. Noun classes existed in languages before they were called, by analogy with biological sex, genders. It's kind of OK for languages with two or three noun classes, especially where nouns associated with men and women mainly follow clearly distinct patterns, however it has major draw-backs when generalizing about languages.
There are articles at Wiki on both Grammatical gender and Noun class. They have little to do with Biological sex or Gender identity. The topic of this article was not nominated as one of the top 150 most important articles, because grammatical gender is perceived to be a vital issue. What is a fascinating topic, full of ongoing research publications, and relevant to almost everyone is the subject of Gender identity, which is commonly known as Gender.
We should probably change the very top of the article to read something like:
This page is about human nature. For grammatical categories, see Grammatical gender.
Gender (or gender identity) involves ...
This could be followed by:
... the classification of humans into mutually exclusive classes by masculine and feminine characteristics.
This would be controversial, but it would reflect why this topic is so important. There is a massive late 20th century literature arguing that such a distinction is only objectively possible regarding physical sexual characteristics, and that even that can be problematic. On the other hand, there is a growing early 21st century biological literature that is demonstrating sexually dimorphic hormonal and genetic influences on brain and behaviour.
Ideally, this article needs to report the ongoing attempts to understand what masculine and feminine actually are, if such stereotypes are even possible, what causes them and how they can be objectively decided. From what I've been reading on the subject, there's a lot of verifiable facts out there, but there's also a great deal that just hasn't been researched yet. If papers on this topic keep being published as quickly as they already are, this article is likely to need regular maintenance. Alastair Haines18:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
On a point about "the classification of humans into mutually exclusive classes by masculine and feminine characteristics" I prefer the line
Gender in common usage refers to the conditions of masculinity and femeninity.
You could replace "conditions" with "states" or "phenomenons"; becuase condition isn't really the clearest word in this case. But in general I think that's the kind of first line this page needs--Caililtalk22:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I agree with you too! Yes, certainly this is the parent article, perhaps a disambiguation page would be a good idea, or a list of gender (and sex) related topics. All the articles you mention, and maybe sexual dimorphism. Perhaps a note on such a page distinguishing sex research from gender studies could also be helpful. They overlap, but focus on different aspects of a big topic. I'm not completely comfortable that animal sexual dimorphism is described in common usage by gender or masculine and feminine, but the topics are certainly closely related in a substantial literature.
I have some quotes somewhere from American lawyers saying "sex is to gender as male and female are to masculine and feminine." This verifies your suggestion for an opening line, which I personally like -- "less is more" as it were. It says just enough to clarify, without saying so much it raises debate right at the start. Yes, I prefer states or phenonmenons / phenomena to conditions. I'm sure a word with the right "feel" to it -- precise but not dehumanizing -- can be found. Kinds or genres jump to mind, lol, genders is a good word, but it's the one we're trying to define!
Anyway, I'm not really disagreeing with anyone, just trying to throw some dust in the air in the hope of stimulating more discussion. Alastair Haines02:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thank you
I read so many horrible pages on the Web everyday - not only on Wikipedia :-) - that I just have to shout out at how beautifully done this page is. Everyone who contributed is to be congratulated. And that's coming from someone who formerly would always go "gender?? gender my eye, it's sex! Gender is a grammar term." An enlightening article. Thank you all.
And thank you! Wiki is about serving readers with reliable information and clear verification trail. So nice to hear feedback from readers, especially positive feedback. Have a great day. Alastair Haines13:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Other languages revisited
As the GA "to do list" includes the question, without asking for expansion, clarification or deletion. I would like to propose that the section stay, with a caution. The caution is that if other languages are to be mentioned, this needs to be done via an appropriately sourced summary, with maybe some clear examples. There are too many languages to cover all in detail, but that is not really needed.
The reason other languages are important is because not all languages have the sex/gender semantic domains that English has, nor the same etymology. It is a common error to think that sex and gender are distinct or interchangable concepts, because the words are distinct or interchangable in English. Actually, the concepts are distinct, but related, hence the blurriness of terminology in English at times. I think it would be fascinating to discover that a Chinese dialect has totally distinct words for, say, biological sex, gender stereotypes, erotic activity and for 'yin' and 'yang' type essential, biological and social distinctions all rolled into one. The fact that Chinese distinguishes between all would not mean those distinctions are real. Perhaps the vocabulary has a view of "essentialist gender" that includes biology and sociology, but perhaps Communism sought to change this.
Probably the way to do it is like with grammatical gender -- list a few examples of languages that represent the handfull of avaialble possibilities. We would only need a few languages each that distinguish, or fail to distinguish, between biology and behaviour. Alastair Haines23:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Filipe, I think that makes sense. Some people define sex as biological gender. Instead of quibbling over terminology, which has been fairly thoroughly covered, we can just write up what biological studies are showing about the biological processes underlying gender distinctions. Alastair Haines16:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I obviously changed my mind on this one. I've tried to give a brief summary of a huge topic area -- sexual differentiation -- by keeping it to the minimum number of things needed to explain the biology of gender. I hope now that the Bio of g section serves as a kind of "summary in advance", connecting the language issues to the scientific results. I've also tried to connect Behaviour to Sociology so that part flows on naturally too. Alastair Haines16:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually I recently learned that both the AMA and WHO define sex as biological and gender as psychological (http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/index.html). There should be a reference at the top of the article disclaiming that, and linking to biological sex for the many who aren't medical professionals and thus end up making that mistake in ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.159.243 (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Edit needed under 'Spirituality'
The second sentence of the fourth paragraph reads: 'Such thought, leave alone entail gender equality, in fact obliterates any material distinction between the male and female altogether.' I've no idea what meaning is intended by the words between the comma's. Pugsworth08:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Progress report
In case anyone stepped out for a moment. In the short time you were away, our committee had a quick pass over the article and made one or two edits. On behalf of the committee, I'm noting each point from the archives and how we've addressed them in the current revision. Alastair Haines21:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Issues from archives
Definition of gender -- grammar, sex, social construction?
addressed in article:
noun classes are separate issue contra Fowler per historical sources of usage from OED et. al.
sex / gender conflation still exists even in academic writing per Haig (oddly enough "to signal sympathy with feminist goals" !?)
sex / social distinction "scientifically debased" per Money but attested in Greek from Aristotle to present, also in Swedish
Examination of "boundary cases"
addressed in article:
DSD is introduced
boundary case species mentioned
societies with non-sex-based gender roles mentioned
Is gender a euphemism for sex?
addressed in article:
No, per history of usage and Haig
conflation of gender and gender role
addressed in article:
original definition provided from Money
article language now consistent with this definition
conflation of gender role and gender identity
addressed in article:
now at top of lead quoting Britannica
connectors and fastners have gender not sex w/out being social
addressed in article:
correct etymology of gender as "kind" (not euphemism) explains this usage
also explains grammatical use of gender
NPOV articulation of gender as social construct needed
addressed in article:
possible flaw in article, it is repeated half a dozen times
loose use of male/female for masculine/feminine
addressed in article:
in contrast to Greek and in Summary of usage section -- male/female dehumanizing or depersonalizing -- "masculine haircut" *male
article could probably cover this issue in more depth (but is now covered at Wiktionary)
male/female are adjectives applied to sex that don't properly compare (and aren't used in grammar)
masculine/feminine do compare and are applied to gender role (or in grammar w/out comparison, but not to gender as sex)
etymology and semantics part of dispute needing careful treatment
addressed in article:
extensive documentation of primary and linguistic sources
even incorrect/outdated views (e.g. Fowler) and diachronic analysis provided
both biological and non-biological discussion of gender should be covered
addressed in article:
article even documents continuum from biology to behaviour
importance of distinguishing objective concept from terminology via languages other than English
addressed in article:
examples now provided of both languages that distinguish and those that don't
need to list all levels of the gender taxonomy
addressed in article:
list priovided with internal links to technical articles and quality external links supplied in text
Issues from Archive 2
Archive 2 is dominated by an extended discussion regarding Grammatical gender. Consensus seems to have been that this is not the most common use of gender, nor the primary meaning and is not particularly relevant to gender as sexual difference. It has its own article. All these conclusions are also reflected in published sources, and are now reflected (by its near absence) in the current revision of the article.
Other issues from Archive 2 reproduce matters discussed in Archive 1 or comment on specifics of past revisions of the article that no longer apply.
Issues from Review
minimal presentation of sexual reproduction relevant to topic attempted
social theories have been copy edited, they cover boundary cases, but could still do with more treatment
the music section still needs research or an expert who knows the sources
language usage is a feature of literature on gender, restriction to English would not reflect a world-wide view
Main Issues in Literature
Language is a big issue in the literature in two ways.
oversimplifications like gender="euphemism for sex" and gender="grammatical category only" are widespread in the literature, but erroneous and cause confusion. Hence etymology needs careful treatment in this article (in fact, more than most dictionary entries would permit).
distinguishing biological gender (sex), gender role and gender identity helps clarify otherwise ambiguous references to gender, so long as the distinctions are not considered absolute and pressed too far — they are intimately related, hence overlap, in much of the literature.
Perhaps the first section should be called Language of gender || Biology of gender.
There is considerable literature on the subject that champions either reform or perpetuation of traditional gender roles. Much of this talks of nature v nurture without actually interacting with biological science. Since biological science has produced a huge array of results demonstrating that both nature and nurture are relevant to various elements of gender, it would seem that this is the neutral place to start — place published science on the table before discussing published opinions.
Conclusion
At the current revision, the article falls into three sections:
clarifies the concept of gender, utilizing the history of language related to it;
introduces the current precision in terminology, which summarizes objective measures of differences;
traces the causal chain through the microscopic sciences up to the social sciences.
Summary
Gender appears to be a side-effect of sexual reproduction on the human brain.
A personal reflection. Brains are where nature and nurture meet. They are very complex. They provide the basis for exceedingly diverse human creativity and flexibility. However, they also impose constraints, as any stroke victim knows.
Members of this review committee reserve the right to blame other members of the committee for any errors in the conclusions, while retaining the right to appropriate for themselves personally any praise given to the committee for its conculusions.
The idea of what I've been doing though, is to allow people to follow the link to see foreign language articles that verify the meaning of the words in the context of their own language. The link, de:Mädchen (syntax: ''[[de:Mädchen]]''), is particularly clear, thanks to the image at that page. If the two letter language code is distracting (and I agree it is not ideal, until one gets used to it), it is possible to use Mädchen (syntax: ''[[de:Mädchen|Mädchen]]''). I think the link is the most important thing, the two letter code is just to warn people that the link does not lead to an English language page.
I imagine what you find confusing is the two letter codes. If we remove them, there will be a different confusion, some will think we are simply linking to an English language article on the meaning of Mädchen, i.e. "girl" — Mädchen (syntax: ''[[Girl|Mädchen]]''). Others will think there is an English language article on the German wordMädchen — Mädchen (syntax: ''[[Mädchen]]'').
When linking to foreign language websites, I also mark those with (in German), (in French) (syntax: {{In lang|fr}}) and so on. For people like you and I who are used to visiting sites in many different languages, we don't expect every page we visit to be in English, but for most people, I think they appreciate the warning, and often don't bother following the link.
There are other options, we could use Mädchen(in German) (syntax: ''[[de:Mädchen]]'' {{de icon}}). That's very clear, but I find it more intrusive on the text.
Well, that's a total of about seven options, all with pros and cons. I like what's in the article best of course, but my number two choice would be, e.g. Mädchen (syntax: ''[[de:Mädchen|Mädchen]]''). Alastair Haines19:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Why systematically link to a page in a foreign language which most readers won't understand, in the first place? It seems better to provide a translation between parentheses, as is most common. (The template I suggested is for pronunciation.)
If you don't like the letters and colons, take them out Filipe, that's how Wiki works. It's nice of you to talk about it first. All I ask is that you make the change by using pipes, so the links remain.
As for the question, "Why link to pages that people won't understand?" The reason to do it is because many, many people will understand. I'd like to know how many hits this page gets from servers in Germany, France, South America and so on. English speakers also learn other languages. Also, I never use every link on a page, who does? The reason to have a link is because someone will find it useful, not because everyone will use it. In fact, in my case, I use precisely the links that point to things I know least about, in order to learn about those things. That goes for languages, as well as ideas.
The only reason I can think of not to link somewhere is because everyone, always, knows everything about that link already. That's why we don't link the word the and why we don't duplicate links on a page. It sounds crazy to say what the criteria are, but the logic is there.
Enough said, go ahead and pipe the links so the language codes don't show. I even volunteer to change them all back if we get any complaints. Alastair Haines19:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I won't make any changes. It seems you are in the middle of a major rewrite, and I don't wish to disturb that. But perhaps you should take a look at what the Wikipedia Style Guide has to say about linking within articles. I haven't looked into it, but there may be pertinent recommendations. Keep up the good work. FilipeS20:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm near the end of a major rewrite! :) (I hope!!!) So you would disturb nothing. Yes, I will look at Style Guide material. I suspect they may encourage inter-language linkage. But I should check! Yes! Thanks for you kind comments, your wise advice, and for your considerate and interactive approach to editing ... both bold and restrained at the right times. I see your work all over Wiki. I'm overdue to drop a barnstar, or two or three, your way. ;) Alastair Haines20:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:AHD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
I remove this paragraph until someone can provide right references.
However, what is functionally relevant are differences in composition and "wiring", some of these differences are very pronounced. Richard J. Haier and colleagues at the universities of New Mexico and California (Irvine) found, using brain mapping, that men have more than six times the amount of grey matter related to general intelligence than women, and women have nearly ten times the amount of white matter related to intelligence than men.[25]
Although two references are provided [1](although in a single number):
Richard J Haier, E Jung and others, 'Structural Brain Variation and General Intelligence',
NeuroImage 23 (2004): 425–433.
The first link does refer to a research done by Richard J. Haier, but that research had nothing to do with gender differences but with age difference. Title: "Structural brain variation and general intelligence". Two mixed gender samples are used and there is no mention of "that men have more than six times the amount of grey matter related to general intelligence than women".
The second referenced provided has nothing to do with with Richard J. Haier or New Mexico and Irvine Universities ant here too there is no reference that man have 6 times more amount of gray matter. --Dia^ (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
My apologies. I linked to the wrong article. I have returned the all the text, and you will now find a link to the correct study, which is online, and contains colour pictures. Additionally, I have quoted the article as regards relative brain mass (not that brain mass is considered to be of any great significance). But to reassert the main point, the study shows women have ten times as much white matter related to intelligence as men, and men 6.5 times as much grey matter. It does vary from individual to individual, but there remains, effectively, an order of magnitude of difference between the extremes of either sex. There is still no evidence that "average overall intelligence" (whatever that may mean) is any different between the sexes, but the observed differences in processing or intellectual strategy now appear to have a confirmed, neurological basis.
I wonder as to why the opening paragraph represents an extremely narrow, monocultural definition of gender: 'Gender refers to the differences between men and women. Encyclopædia Britannica notes that gender identity is "an individual's self-conception as being male or female, as distinguished from actual biological sex."' First of all, why is the Encyclopædia Britannica used as a citation for such a definition? I doubt you'd find many social scientists that would agree with this. Gender varies greatly across cultures and is not simply the roles assigned to males and females. Second, not only do gender roles differ on a spectrum deviant from a male/female dichotomy, but so it has been established that sex has more than two manifestations. I don't think the first sentence of the opening paragraph should reflect a definition that is so narrow it is practically incorrect. If you want me to provide citation, I would easily be able to cite many sources that have more knowledge about gender than the Encyclopædia Britannica. Edit: forgot to login. Here's my signature. Ripcurlprfection (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Ripcurl, thanks for you comment and questions.
Britannica was my choice (and has not been challenged until now) due to the assumption that readers would prefer one uncontroversial source if possible, and the knowledge that Britannica simply reflects the definition accepted in current academic literature. The extended quote from John Money, in the relevant part of the body of the article, gives an extended, but concise, history of terminology, if you want more detailed information.
I hope that answers both your question as to why Britannica was chosen, and takes away any concern that it is out of step with the best sources. Is Britannica 2007 really likely to be unaware of academic definition? Is it likely to run contrary to it? I'm a little surprised you suggest it, but I admire your healthy scepticism.
You make two interesting suggestions:
1. gender varies across cultures
2. gender is not simply the roles assigned to males and females.
You are absolutely right about both points. You are just out-of-date with terminology. What you will find in current mainstream articles is statements like:
1.(a) many gender roles vary across cultures -- men work on oil rigs in some places, go fishing in others.
But you will also find:
1.(b) some gender roles are the same across cultures -- men tend to do both the dangerous work and the important work, for example.
If you doubt this, consider the USA. 98% of casualties in Iraq are male. 4% of "fortune 500" companies have female CEOs. Though, actually, the USA is usually considered one of the most gender egalitarian societies in history. I don't know what to make of this myself, I'm just passing on what is discussed in the literature.
Similar observations are made about women's roles: those that are more divergent and those that show commonalities. However, the point is, modern terminology calls this area of interest the study of gender roles. It is distinct from study of gender identity, for example. Which is why your second point is also correct.
2. (a) gender roles are about the roles men and women choose for themselves; on the other hand, gender identity is the sense of being a man or a woman, independent of whatever roles they may choose to adopt.
Hence, for example, someone who "feels" like a woman, but choose male roles for herself, can be described as having female gender identity, while pursuing masculine gender roles.
Which roles are considered male, female or epicene evolves from the collective preferences and decisions of society and various biological factors, like pregnacy for example. For many roles the boundaries are not always clear, is it a masculine or feminine role to empty the letter-box? But the point of the new terminology is to provide a simple, convenient convention to describe people who feel perfectly "male", while choosing to stay home and look after the kids, while their wives are doing shifts down the mines.
The terminology extends even further to erotic preference, where it is even more helpful in distinguishing homosexuality from transgender, for example. Homosexual men are men who like men, not transexuals, who are biologically male, and attracted to men, but honestly feel themselves to be women, often even prefering gender roles that reinforce their feelings of being a woman.
Perhaps the article looks long, and you were uncomfortable with Britannica and didn't get any further. Perhaps you are tired of reading lots of bad articles about gender, and this one wasn't looking any better. I recommend you give it another go. I'm afraid it will not preach any particular position. It doesn't go into issues of injustice (which are real and sometimes very serious indeed). However, please let me know if there is anything you would like more information about. I wrote most of what is currently in the text, and there is only space to provide a few references. Sometimes I've chosen easy to read popular ones, sometimes I've chosen academic ones. I have hundreds (probably thousands) of references on my computer. I'm happy to provide more if needed. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Ripcurlprfection on this issue. In society, across all cultures, gender refers to an identity that is either male or female. There are many people, whether they are in the LGTBQ community or not, that do not fall into a male or female gender category, whether it be for social or emotional reasons. People that identify as genderqueer, gendefucks, bigendered, ect, identify as male, female, both, or neither for multiple reasons, but it doesn't depend on socially accepted gender binaries- being ONLY male or ONLY female.76.26.208.164 (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)k2datmc
Absolutely, looks like we all agree. Under Sociology you will find the point of view you mention described with references to several societies with social categories beyond masculine and feminine. Perhaps you don't quite agree with the sociologists, who view the number of potential genders to be (theoretically) unlimited. You may like to use the search term "third gender" in Google or Google scholar for more information. Feel free to expand the article with information from sources, or challenge any information that doesn't have sources to back it. All published points of view are welcome. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Beauvoir.jpg
The image Image:Beauvoir.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
A considerable quantity of text has been added under Sociology. It's great to have this extra material, however it needs to be edited to reduce repetition of "gender as social construct", which now must be repeated in the article about a dozen times overall! It also needs to be clearly flagged that this is only one POV (even within Sociology), and the view must be attributed to reliable sources (which are not hard to find of course). However, much of the recent addition is assertive of the views as if they are uncontroversial fact, which is not of course the case. Where they are theories they need to be presented as such, where there is evidence, the interpretation of evidence needs to described as such. Wikipedia is addressed to a different audience than sociology text books. As indeed other sciences need to be written up in a way suited to the encyclopedic medium. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
GA reassessment
This article is currently listed as a Good Article, but I believe it no longer meets the criteria. Here are a list of improvements to make:
The lead should be three or four full paragraphs summarizing all the main points of the article. See WP:LEAD.
There are several citation needed tags.
Fix the neutrality issue.
Why is the word gender bolded so much? See MOS:BOLD about when it is appropriate to use boldface.
The whole Etymology and usage section is oddly formatted.
There shouldn't be in external links in the article itself.
To my thinking, article ratings are no more than internal requests for assistance, any user can change them any time (except upgrades to FA or a writer upgrading to GA). In fact, I'll downgrade this article to B myself, since I think it contains some poor material that anyone can remove. The article was GA when I arrived here, at that point it mainly contained only the poor material. I addressed that by adding quality sourced material, rather than by adjusting the rating or removing the poor material.
Specific points
The lead should be a simple introduction. WP:LEAD is a guideline. Tastes and reader agendas vary. The current lead is non ideal but it fits the guidelines and is stable. By all means change it and see what happens.
Cite needed text can be deleted if you don't like the tags.
If the uncited material is deleted, there's not much POV left in that section. I may be willing to take out the tag I added.
Gender is in bold in the Usage section in line with standard conventions of clearly marking usage of words or terms in extended discussion of that usage. Using italics instead would suggest emphasis, which would be wrong.
Please specify what is odd about the formatting of the Usage section, it conforms well to my experience of discussions of usage in a wide range of diachronic linguists texts and other related works. I would agree it is "example heavy" with little connecting prose. However, given that it is not the main point of the article, this is a way of being concise and reliable.
Avoiding external links within an article would seem to be a guideline also. References often include external links and are coded within the article, or in the Notes section, rather than in the External links section. If you are refering to the online display of development of primary sexual characteristics, I will certainly argue to retain that in situ, since the liklihood of people using that helpful resource would be reduced by moving it out of context.
So, in summary, I am downgrading this article to B effective immediately. I welcome deletion of poor material that I have not troubled to remove myself, and any experiments with new leads. I will however revert other proposed changes to the current stable version, unless they are backed by better arguments than appeals to rough guidelines as though these are binding policies. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
PS the software signalled that downgrades are not, as I wrongly thought, decisions for individual users. The software considers four projects to have classified this article as GA. I can live with that. I think it's a "B", but I'm not going to try to pursuade four projects to change their minds. I'll appreciate it if you do that work for me, though. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed. I see that the article had a reassessment earlier this month, and that some of the issues were addressed. However, I have made minor corrections myself and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you disagree with any of the issues, leave a comment after the specific issue and I'll be happy to discuss/agree with you. To keep tabs on your progress so far, either strike through the completed tasks or put checks next to them.
Needs inline citations:
"The historical meaning of gender is something like "things we treat differently because of their inherent differences"."
"Sexual differentiation demands the fusion of gametes which are morphologically different. — Cyril Dean Darlington, Recent Advances in Cytology, 1937."
"In some species hermaphrodites can self-fertilize, in others they can achieve fertilization with females, males or both." action—added {fact} tag
"Birds typically have a reverse, ZW system — males are ZZ and females ZW." action—added {fact} tag
"Several species of butterfly are known to have female parent sex determination." action—added {fact} tag
"Throughout history social theorists have sought to determine the specific nature of gender in relation to biological sex and sexuality, with the result being that culturally established gender and sex have become interchangeable identifications which signify the allocation of a specific ‘biological’ sex within a categorical gender" action—added {fact} tag
"The social sciences, however, now argue that gender is socially constructed and hegemonic in all societies." action—added {fact} tag
"Contemporary socialisation theory proposes the notion that when a child is first born it has a biological sex but no social gender." action—added {fact} tag
"...which socialises the child into belonging to a culturally specific gender."
"Schwalbe believes that these distinctions are important, because we want to identify and categorize people as soon as we see them."
"For example, in Australia prior to the Re Kevin decisions, transsexual people could be recognised as having the genders they identified with under many areas of the law, including social security law, but not for the law of marriage. Thus, for a period, it was possible for the same person to have two different genders under Australian law."
"It is also possible in federal systems for the same person to have one gender under state law and a different gender under federal law (a state recognises gender transitions, but the federal government does not)."
"Gender, and particularly the role of women is widely recognized as vitally important to international development issues."
"This often means a focus on gender-equality, ensuring participation, but includes an understanding of the different roles and expectation of the genders within the community."
"As well as directly addressing inequality, attention to gender issues is regarded as important to the success of development programs, for all participants."
"For example, in microfinance it is common to target women, as besides the fact that women tend to be over-represented in the poorest segments of the population, they are also regarded as more reliable at repaying the loans."
"Also, it is claimed that women are more likely to use the money for the benefit of their families."
"God is often compared to a warrior, defender, judge, and king. Once God is compared to a person sewing and once to a person knitting."
"In western music theory, keys, chords and scales are often described as having major or minor tonality, sometimes related to masculine and feminine."
Other issues:
As mentioned above, the lead does need to be expanded to three or four paragraphs to better summarize the article.
""It is well established that men have a larger cerebrum than women by about 8–10% (Filipek et al., 1994; Nopoulos et al., 2000; Passe et al., 1997a,b; Rabinowicz et al., 1999; Witelson et al., 1995)." These citations should be converted to inline citations like the two directly after it.
"‘The idea that men and women are more different from one another than either is from anything else, must come from something other than nature… far from being an expression of natural differences, exclusive gender identity is the suppression of natural similarities.’ (Glover & Kaplan, 2000, p. xxi)" Convert this to an inline citation.
"Gays and lesbians are often discriminated against in our legal system due to societal prejudices." Whose legal system?
This article covers the topic well and if the above issues are addressed, I believe the article can remain a GA. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with the related WikiProjects so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for such hard work, where I agree with you, and think the matter important, I will make changes directly.
As an individual editor, I am only concerned with accuracy of certain parts of this article. I am not at all concerned by whatever rating is deemed appropriate for the overall article. Such decisions and the objectives they seek to attain are a long way above my level.
Were it up to me, the article would be a "B", since its most important part (imo) is the bibliography; and until an article has balanced representatives of available, current and canonical sources for its subject area, its future is insecure.
As far as I understand, from helping others get to GA, this article is not "GA", since it has outstanding {fact tags}.
Anyway, I'm launching now into addressing your clear documentation of interaction with the article. I really appreciate such constructive criticism, and want to show my respect by interacting with it. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Other issues:
Lead—I will take some time over the next week to update the lead as you suggest.
Haier quote—The references are cited in Haier's text, and formatted according to his article. I think it is important that the typography clearly shows these references were not selected by Wiki editors, but published in a peer-reviewed source.
Glover & Kaplan—Since I did not provide this quote, I cannot vouch for its accuracy. Sadly, I often find text misquoted or paraphrased in ways that do not reflect sources. I am not willing to convert a reference I have not personally checked.
Legal system—POV, OR (no RS). I doubt both the quantifier "often" and the attribution of causation "due to". I will add a {Fact} tag. It is probably Hurst's opinion, though I doubt statistics have been gathered to confirm it, and I think it likely that governments would deny it. Both POVs need to be stated. Charles E Hurst is American, from the College of Wooster. Presumably it is the US legal system that he thinks needs reform. (If, indeed, it is his opinion that is being paraphrased by the editor who added the text.) That's not my legal system, nor that of many readers, so our certainly is wrong here (and in many other places I saw when copy-editing this text after it was added).
Unfortunately, since the issues weren't fixed, and likely need more than another week to address, I have regrettably delisted the article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. Thank you to Alastair Haines for seeking to improve the article, and I hope the issues are eventually adddressed. If the issues are fixed, consider renominating the article at WP:GAN. With a little work, especially with a collaboration among the multiple WikiProjects, it should have no problems getting back up to GA status. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your work Nehrams. I completely agree with you. I now have a seconder for failing this article.
The article was GA when I arrived, I thought that was too high, I still think it is too high. I will tinker with a few things, but my aim with this article has simply been to provide sourced information on key sections, not to raise its rating. It will need others to commit to that initiative.
Thanks for documenting your change at the talk page. That's great collaborative editing.
I'm not too fussed about whether the sentence stays or goes, but I am interested in understanding your objection better.
Ettinger does seem to be an original thinker in the broad feminist tradition. I'm not sure where the threshhold of "famous" lies.
I presume your objection is more to the fact that she's an odd choice when there are so many more representative names, and this is not an article going into depth and requiring such detail. Am I wrong?
Any other comments would be helpful, I agree with the GA review, the Sociology/Feminism/Gender Studies section mars an otherwise good article. Any suggestions for improving it? I'd rather keep it until we have something better. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I know very little about this subject, so I'm not in a position to offer my opinion on Ettinger's importance, and honestly I don't feel strongly about the sentence either. However, if I read here that Ettinger is important, I would like to be able to verify that claim. To me, the threshold of "famous" is when a reliable source says so. I suppose the objection is based simply on the observation that the sentence is a statement that these authors are of particular importance in the emergence of "gender" as a construct that is independent of biological gender. If I were to question this, I couldn't read the source, as no source is cited. It sounds to me like the Wikipedia editor who added the sentence feels this way, but there is no indication that an independent source feels this way. I read WP:OR as saying that anyone is free to remove such new claims which seem to originate from a WP editor rather than a reliable source. It further seems that someone directly challenges Ettinger as having been important in this emergence, and thus I don't see how one can revert that without bringing a reliable source stating that Ettinger is, in fact important. Blackworm (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Note also: I haven't made any edit (yet) relevant to this discussion, have no comment on the widespread attempt to minimize discussion of Ettinger in WP articles, and my objection applies to all authors claimed to be important to the emergence of gender as a cultural rather than biological construct (not just Ettinger). Blackworm (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
That all sounds fair enough to me. I think the main thing that needs to be said in that section is that there was a brief period of a few decades in recent history where the hypothesis that gender operates largely independently of biological factors was seriously mooted. Naomi Wolf would be an excellent example of a serious gender writer and a popular one who expressed in the early 90s strong convictions of sociological rationale for gender phenomena in the Beauty Myth, yet she has more recently expressed that the "jury is still out" on that question. She is far from alone in backing off on the famous gender-as-social-construct paradigm.
The historical reason for this is clear, the nineties saw the rise of MRI technology that allows brain function to be observed and measured and gender differences are quite pronounced in various regions, like language. The "naughties" have seen the rise of even more technological wizardry, showing genetic antecedents for various aspects of brain structure, this includes the activity of genes specific to sex chromosomes, with obvious implications for causal connections between chromosomal sex and preferences and attributes arising from brain differences.
Although the biology of the brain remains amazingly intricate and the way it codes preference and behaviour will undoubtedly be a subject of active research long into the future, it is no longer the "black box" it was prior to the nineties.
In this topic area, we live, as they say, in interesting times. Science, while making new discoveries in the area even as we speak, does not claim final knowledge of answers to gender questions, it would be odd were other disciplines to have established those answers with certainty independent of science.
My bet is that Naomi Wolf and other like-minded commentators would be excellent reliable sources to following the current state of educated feminist opinion. (See manliness for an outstanding recent interview she conducted with Harvey Mansfield.) Other writers and famous historical theories are also notable, of course, and should not be excluded, though detailed treatment of the history of ideas probably belongs in other articles that can elucidate them more adequately.
Perhaps Ettinger lies in the grey area between this article and a more specific history of ideas in sociological gender theories. I'm glad I'm not the one making such decisions. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
This article seems...
I think this article has fused with a bad term paper. Can someone revert a superior version? My small brain is lost. The perspective jumps around and it feels like a thesis at times. Some sentences seem unnecessarily complex for the scope of this article and the formatting gives the impression that is was ripped from some other source.
The historical meaning of gender is something like "things we treat differently because of their inherent differences".[12]
Money refers to attempts to distinguish a difference between biological sex and social gender as "scientifically debased", because of our increased knowledge of a continuum of dimorphic features (Money's word is "dipolar"), that link biological and behavioural differences.
Hence the, then plausible, theory that these differences might be explained by arbitrary cultural assignments of roles. However, Money notes concisely that masculine or feminine self-identity is now seen as essentially an expression of dimorphic brain structure (Money's word is "coding"). The new discoveries have an additional advantage over the theory of cultural arbitrariness of gender roles, as they help explain the similarities between these roles in widely divergent cultures (see Steven Pinker on Donald Brown's Human Universals, including romantic love,[14] sexual jealousy,[15][16][17] and patriarchy). [18]
"It is well established that men have a larger cerebrum than women by about 8–10% (Filipek et al., 1994; Nopoulos et al., 2000; Passe et al., 1997a,b; Rabinowicz et al., 1999; Witelson et al., 1995)."[30][31]
The term "woman" has chronically been used as a reference to and for the female body; however there is much controversy to the usage and definement of "woman." What we fail to do is see the qualitative analysis that explores and presents the representations of gender; what feminists challenge is the dominant ideologies concerning gender roles and sex.
I think that a mention of masculinism should be made within or around the section of feminism as that will allow the opposing view point style to be preserved as masculinism is becoming more culturally and sociologically excepted in many area's/circles.
Where as masculinism is not nessesarily an opposition of feminism, but it is more an adjunct to it, nonetheless it can still be viewed as having a direct relation with feminism as it is an attempt to attain the same level of rounded cultural acceptance for men that women attained with feminism. During feminism women argued that they should be treated with the same level of respect privately, publicly, and economically as men were at the time. Masculinism broaches the topic that women are not the only people constructed with certain issues such as: body image, clothing choice, and sexual promiscuity. As masculinism pertains to body image is the same way feminism brought to light the fact that women are bombarded with images of what they “should” look like everyday relentlessly (ex. slim, pretty, dolled-up) considering that masculinism brings to light the male equivalent ( ex. muscular, slim, virile). Whereas it is acceptable for a female to wear what she wants (ex. pants) because of feminism but men are still constrained from wearing some things that are “feminine” (ex. skirts). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.39.117.93 (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
DSD
Wiki article on SEX uses the term "Intersex"
DSD is a term coined by the Chicago consensus group. The originators consider that it has failed to remedy the problem it was invented to solve . Read Karkazis "Fixing sex" . There is dispute amongst theorists Diamond et al as to a suitable term. VSD and others have been proposed. Intersex organizations consider that it further pathologises an already overpathologised minority .
Dear Gina, thanks for the references, refs are always helpful of course. Article does link as suggested, it also notes that terminology is not stable. "Disorders of sex differentiation" is yet another term, used by the US National Library of Medicine - Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). I'd support you were you to add another term to the article. I don't feel the need to add it personally, since the articles on DSDs seem a better place to document the current plethora of terminology. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Intersex
Maybe this article should get out of Intersex altogether. The AIS example assumes all AIS individuals are women this is factualy incorrect. See Tony Briffa AISSG Australia.
Intersex is complex and there will be exceptions to any attempt at demonstrating a binary using it. The terminology used is often hotly disputed by theorists and the Intersex themselves.
Thanks for your perseverence Gina. The article notes explictly that "when masculinizing agents are completely absent ..." AIS results in people of typically female appearance, feminine gender identity etc., etc. DSDs are rare, but very diverse, even within the medical categorizations, including AIS as we both know. By all means expand references to them, though personally I feel they take us away from the main point of this article and better justice can be given them in their own articles.
It is an interesting position you take, that DSDs don't demonstrate binary sexuality. Although a horrendous term, pseudohermaphroditism did at least make it clear that nearly all our brothers and sisters with their slightly atypical biologies can indeed be classified as male or female, indeed some are considered "hyper-male" or "hyper-female", more "sexed" not less (or in between). It is truly a complex subject, all the more so because it has become politicised, and typically not by those representing the interests of the intersex community. But most of those matters are for the DSD related articles I would imagine.
Here, I've reported terms that have been established in the literature. I don't like any of them: pseudohermaphroditism is too long and a negative definition, intersex doesn't capture the "fully sexed" nature of many or most of the people we are seeking to understand, and DSD suggests they might be disfunctional in some way, when many, most or all are not dysfunctional in any meaningful sense. The boffins are taking their time in finding the right words, but I trust they'll get there, and we'll all eagerly embrace some piece of terminological genius eventually.
Very best to you Gina, I'm sure we agree the most important thing about the people we are trying to understand is that they are human. There's much more to that than sex or gender or whatever. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 10:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Other Genders that are not Male or Female?
Just a quick question-please redirect me if this has already been noted. What would you call a theoretical third gender-perhaps one that supplies chromosomes or something. Surely some scientist out there has come up with terminology? ParadoxJuice (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Anne Fausto-Sterling has offered "ferms" "herms" and "merms" or something to describe hypothetical female through male intermediate sexes. It is not clear that such ferms and merms can be easily recognised, however. Her five-sex system has a few significant supporters, and a lot of criticism. It has the benefit of her solid biological science pedigree, but some serious empirically based objections.
After five decades of intense research, the consensus of biology remains that Homo sapiens has two sexes.
Third sex would be about chromosomes, not third gender. In some species (including some fungi from memory), there are multiple "mating types" that are sometimes classified differently to the usual binary sexual system. I don't recall seeing consensus in the many articles on such species. I'd recommend you chase down the sexual reproduction article corpus here, follow some links and google around a bit to start digesting the mountain of technical biological work regarding this aspect of nature. It's a wild world out there, "boy meets girl" is a poor metaphor for several complex sexual processes in various species.
Third gender is a hypothetical sociological construct covering social institutions, hence it is only meaningful for given societies, e.g. Hijra in Pakistan (if you accept the sociological construct). There is no "universal" third gender, unless there is a universal society. Perhaps the term you want is "transgender" which is sometimes used to describe "crossing" genders, other times it is used to describe "transcending" genders. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I came to this page to clear up something that was said in my local newspaper regarding whether or not gender is a purely grammatical distinction.
This article absolutely dies! Starting at, "Social theorists have sought to determine the specific nature of gender in relation to biological sex and sexuality..." the article plummets into the unreadable.
Consider the following:
"This question of being woman is more difficult that it is perhaps originally appeared, for we..."
(emphasis mine)
A quotation including 'We' used at the start of a section! It gets worse:
Gender and sex, said Judith Butler, are more like verbs than nouns. But my actions are limited. I am not permitted to construct my gender and sex willy-nilly, according to Butler; this is so because gender is politically and therefore socially controlled. Rather than woman being something one is, it is something one does[59].
Has the author of that piece heard of quotation marks? They are great. In fact, sometimes their use is imperative.
This article is filled with the unverifiable ideas of someone who does not understand what an encyclopedia is. The quotations are presented as facts, and sometimes are missing quotations marks. This page is worse than some of the 'advertising' pages that have been sneakily posted by overzealous marketers.
The parts you mention, and several others are woeful, agreed. You can use the [edit] button to correct or remove them.
I do trust your newspaper got the right answer.
So called grammatical "gender" is now more typically called noun class in linguistics. Perhaps grammatical usage of gender will be obsolete within a few decades.
Most current usage of the word gender refers to sexual dimorphism in Homo sapiens, especially preferences in social and sexual roles.
I trust there is adequate citation of linguistic data and secondary sources to establish these points in the early part of the article. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Needs more links
On third sex/gender
There are already Wiki articles on this maybe they should be added to "see more" section.
I think this article leans too heavily on research that is, right at the moment more than disputable. Why the over-quoting of Money, when his research are so disputed even by the scientific community. While there might be a scientific basis for gender differences, Money doesn't take into account that this doesn't explain at all the success of the patriarchal model. He doesn't account for species memory and development...According to Harvard and Stanford's studies from last year, brain differences exist (so far about a hundred listed), but are no that significant.
The same problem goes for the quote 'Men's brains are 8 to 10% bigger than women's brains". I don't know for the 8 to 10%, I know the difference is 100 grams in average, but once again, according to the scientists, this doesn't mean anything if you don't add that men's average corporal mass is also higher thus accounting for a bigger brain (a whale has a bigger brain than men, it doesn't mean whale are more intelligent).
And lastly Money works doesn't account for twins: if differences in biology create societal differences, how come some twins are so different when they have the same genetic material at their disposal?
I would love to have the time to research everything, but I don't, so maybe someone could take a look into this...Basically the articles relies too heavily on biological evidence that is shaky and that we don't understand fully yet, and might not for another fifty years. We have so much to discover yet on the human brain than making statements like those made in the article is more than dubious.
Hi Anne, I am personally guilty for including John Money and a good deal of the medical and biological details. From memory, I only used Money to source the genesis of gender terminology, because it is simply historical fact that several key terms in sexology were coined by him. Money was famously wrong about David Reimer. Money had other controversial views, none of which are documented in this article. I noted that he was a controversial (though still respected) figure. There is an excellent obiturary for Money in the Journal of Sex Research (I think I dropped a ref into the Money article). He did leave us with many helpful breakthroughs in sexology. He was a pretty typical boffin I think: 10% inspiration, 85% persperation, 5% absolute howlers. The major quote from him includes matters he was forced to change his mind on. It's a sober summary from a researcher who'd seen everything from the beginning.
Other biological sources used in the article are carefully selected to document material that is also now well-established, some of it for more than 20 or 30 years. Feel free to challenge any specific reference. I think most are just about right for a few years: they are not so old to be outdated, not so new to be dubious.
Finally, I have never read a single source in hundreds, or maybe more than a thousand references, that suggests gender is a purely biological phenomenon. However, I have read many that suggest biology has no significant impact on gender (as you suggest yourself also). The problem is, none of the sources that say biology has no impact are written by biologists, and if they deal with biology at all, they only deal with cases where it is well known that biology is not a significant factor. On the other hand, no social conditioning has yet been demonstrated that is powerful enough to bring a man to conceive, endure morning sickness and labour, nor to prepare him to breast feed. Yet there are endless studies of the social and economic costs of single motherhood, for example.
As I understand it (and I haven't researched this enough to be sure), one current emphasis in public policy is implementing social programs to cater for the unique needs of that subset of women who choose to accept the responsibilities of parenthood their biology gives to them. There's a lot more to it, but I'd recommend you beat me to it and read up on preference theory. I think it is all about how society can assist women with their different preferences in managing their unique biology. Sounds pretty fair to me, but what matters is what reliable sources say about it of course. ;) Best Alastair Haines (talk) 08:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Human race
It should maybe be noted that the expression genre humain in French literally means human race and doesn't separate humanity into male and female. There is a similar expression in Latin called Humani generis, which is also the title on an encyclical letter. The modern notion of gender is an Anglo-Saxon social construct which has not quickly assimilated into other cultures and languages. It is also a fairly ideological construct, in that it can mean several different things depending on their social or political context. ADM (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for those French and Latin phrases, which strike me as being perfect examples of the original use of the word gendre in Middle English (post Anglo Saxon aka Old English). John Money makes the same point you make, that ideology has been overlaid on the word in recent years.
I'd be interested to hear if any of the etymological sources or descriptions of usage in other languages appeared dubious to you, since you are clearly rather well versed in such things. Please feel free to use the [edit] button in the article to refine, add or delete as you think wise, especially if you can cite a reference work that supports the edit.
You sound like you have a brain worth picking for information, especially if you tell us whose brains you picked to educate your own. salve homo sapiens :) Alastair Haines (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Where and whether to put Savillo
The human choice of gender was recently defined as mental conditioning occurring naturally ( may be epigenetically influenced) and voluntarily without pressure that ranges from a very short to a very long term basis. REF: 'Isidro T. Savillo's Statement on Choice of Gender, 2009'
The source doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria. This page looks like Savillo's home page, which means that it is an acceptable source for information on Savillo but not on anything else. This doesn't mean that we can't include Savillo's ideas, though. We'd just have to explain who he was and say where the information was coming from: "Isidro T. Savillo, President of International Society for Molecular and Cell Biology Protocols and Researches, Inc., gives his own definition of gender as '[his def.]' "
My bigger problem with this quote is that there's no context explaining what either Savillo or the poster means by "the choice of gender." I can't tell if it refers to gender identity or if someone out there thinks that human beings decide whether to be male or female. The source material provided no helpful context. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
-In this category he is a theoretical biologist see open directory in theoretical biology. But its good that you're thinking where to put him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.51.136 (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Here is an example of his work that could probably help:[``Prof. Savillo's other article that could shed to the impermanence of sexual phenotypes is located "here" ( from his web page).~~] "here" refers to "The Role of the Environment A Twist in Genetic Expression" by him published in BiologyBrowser. Other source has implied that it was from him that that pioneering statement that there is no such thing as a true male and true female comes. That's all I can say.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.63.79 (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
What Savillo here means is in the category of sexual phenotypic behavior...males and females are the basic yet males can be "females" and females can be "males" when the situation calls for it.. it could be environmental or physiological or even in the mom's placenta but the vice versa scheme is always possible. Ask yourselves who u are.. as you developmentally grow to senescence? Effems and Non Effems can be homosex... In fact Savillo is eyeing a theory that Humans as well as the lower forms (any exception?) are built after a "hermaphroditic pattern" as to their Sexual Phenotypic Behavior. Well culture/society/laws/tradition/your dad and mom bind us guys to worship heterosexuality..So I think what Savillo's statement is about covers the 4 types of human gender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.61.244 (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 3 (hetero,bi,homo) instead of 4.
Bi has a bit of hetero and homo on it so it encompasses the rest of gender? Savillo and colleague define Bi as 50% interest in female and 50% in male so any thing short of that be categorized as homo.. or probably what Savillo's choice of gender is limited to hetero and homo...That's all.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.61.244 (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Bi's definition is just used to delineate it from Homo and Hetero and the definition for the latter two could not be quantitatively derived from Bi's definition..The acceptable def for Hetero- 100% towards opposite sex; while Homo is the 100% same..119.95.61.244 (talk) 09:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would like to comment on their bi def- it seems that this has a more dominant position or at an advantaged point compared to hetero and homo in fact the fear of allowing homos to teach esp in primary schools in two countries ["frames heterosexuality as fragile and easily spoiled" by Graeme Storer- see below for ref].
N. Bailey of UCR wrote about same sex behavior in almost(?)all non- human species as reported in his 2009 paper but Savillo made mention of that in his 2003 article titled "Role of the Environment : A Twist in Genetic Expression" with this statement: The change in sexual phenotype would either lead to a successful reproduction or just casual to serious “unproductive” relations which are species specific. Species specific embody a lot of species here generally speaking.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.51.67 (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is a definition of sexual orientation from Bailey and Zuks paper--- will you believe this?? "Sexual orientation: the stable and enduring internal preference for same versus
opposite-sex sexual interactions and partnering in humans. Might differ
from outward identification: one might outwardly identify as heterosexual, yet maintain private homosexual preferences." My comment: Behavior plays a role here--- and behavior provide leeways for development of new sets of behavior... then why use stable, why use enduring?? Savillo's 12/08 statement: 12/06/08~ Just like any type of human behavior, the expectations of sexual behavioral phenotype can be twisted by the environment and are not wholly genetically sex (male or female) based. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.51.67 (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
[More on Graeme Storer from online article-http://intersections.anu.edu.au/issue2/Storer.html; I think this will be helpful-
"The need to unravel sex, gender identity and gender roles, patterns of sexual behaviour and sexual meaning, and to move away from the confinement of binary gender categories is well-noted.[9] Freudian and empiricist accounts of sexuality have tended to view sexuality as fixed or intrinsic states, in which masculinity and femininity are merely the active and passive forms of the same sexual drive.[10] By contrast, social constructionist theory views social structures as neither unitary nor cohesive: rather, rules and norms may be and are contested, and social structures may be and are transformed.[11] Gagnon and Simon[12] and Plummer,[13] for example, begin with the understanding that sexual meanings are social products situated within larger socio-historical formations. These are neither given nor fixed, but are continually 'worked at', and negotiated through interaction. Thus, while individual actors learn and enact 'sexual scripts,'[14] they also contest and re-shape the 'rules of play'. Agency is central here for it is the intended and unintended consequences of human action that reproduce and transform social structures.[15]"]
Sex Versus Gender- According to Savillo, sex is chromosomally based so Male or Female (though others mistook this as gender) while Gender is epigenetically based plus voluntarily surrendering without pressure-- in this aspect a person's gender is an open option... in ones human life span there may be some changes that it "ranges from a very short to a long term basis" So one's gender is unanswerable but at status quo one can answer but not for the future or the totality of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.60.178 (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Currently, Wikipedia has no article about sex, in the sense of a sexual physiological endowment. The article “Sex” concerns itself with the sexual process. The article “Sex (disambiguation)” seems to confuse “gender” with sexual physiological endowment; in any even, it provides a link to “Gender” as ostensibly concerning a primary meaning of “sex”, but not to an article on sexual physiological endowment. —SlamDiego←T22:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
No one's confused. "Gender" and "sex" do mean the same thing in gender's colloquial sense and sex's former colloquial sense. The state of being male or female in the physical sense is covered by this article and by the biology of gender article. It is appropriate that the article on sexual intercourse be named "sex" because this is its common name. However, perhaps it would be appropriate to create a redirect page named Sex (physical gender) leading to the biology of gender article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I do not feel that the Sexual intercourse article should be called Sex. While most people simply state "sex" when meaning "sexual intercourse" (which is clearly because it is quicker to say), "sexual intercourse" is the more appropriate title. The term (sexual intercourse) is generally used in the legal and scientific sense, and the term "sex" could mean biological sex, sexual intercourse...or gender. Flyer22 (talk) 09:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
By that same reasoning, social scientists should not say "gender" when they really mean "gender role" or "gender identity," but good luck getting them to stop after fifty years! WP:COMMONNAME would probably apply here. "Sex" is generally understood to mean "sexual intercourse" in most contexts. But you're right that it does have more than one correct definition. That's probably why someone made a disambiguation page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Of course...sometimes social scientists do not mean "gender role" when the say "gender." They can only go with what is presented, unless they know that person's gender identity for a fact. Usually, their saying "gender" has to do with believing that one's gender role is also the gender that person identifies as. They relate gender as only being about the social, and sex as being about the biological. "Gender identity" is often simply viewed as "gender" anyway. It makes sense that they would mean "gender identity" when they say "gender." But as for titles, we do not always go by WP:Common name. And, really, saying "sexual intercourse" is just as common as saying "sex"; it is just that "sex" is said more often, due to being a shortcut to "sexual intercourse." But, yeah, this is not something that really needs debating. Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
To add on to the word "sex" having different meanings, though, "sexual intercourse" largely signifies coitus/copulation; it is usually defined that way. "Sex," on the other hand, could mean a variety of different sex acts (such as non-penetrative ones). That is another reason I feel that the Sexual intercourse article, though the word "sexual intercourse" has expanded beyond simply meaning penis-vagina sex (as the article notes), should stay titled Sexual intercourse. Flyer22 (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I find that "sexual intercourse" is nowhere near as common as "sex." However, if you feel strongly about it, perhaps you should bring it up on the article's talk page. I don't agree with your conclusion, but you do have some points that that page's participants should hear. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
In the legal and scientific sense, "sexual intercourse" is as common as "sex." And when people want to make clear what kind of sexual intimacy they mean, they say "sexual intercourse" or simply "intercourse." For example, a person may say, "We engaged in intercourse and other sex acts." Or, "Which do you prefer, intercourse or oral sex?" Specifying a sex act as either forced "intercourse" or some other forced sexual act is also seen with cases of rape. Most people, from my experience and studies of all these topics, do not consider oral sex to be sexual intercourse or "real sex." Bill Clinton clearly thought the same way (and probably still does). The same thing goes for people generally not viewing non-penetrative sex acts as sexual intercourse and sometimes not even anal sex as sexual intercourse. This is why we have separate articles for these topics, besides there being a lot to cover with each. "Vaginal sex" was redirected to Sexual intercourse because it is the default definition of Sexual intercourse. Not many people say, "I had vaginal sex." They say "intercourse" or "sex." When not vaginal sex, though, and they want to specify, they say "oral sex" or "anal sex" or whatever. The technical virginity "term," which I backed up with references in the Virginity article, is also an example of people restricting "sexual intercourse" or "real sex" to mean vaginal sex.
We could rename one article to Sex (intercourse) and the other to Sex (biology), but sexual intercourse is biological as well...and "Sex (intercourse)" may signify "vaginal sex" even stronger to some people than "Sexual intercourse" does (due to the word "intercourse" standing out that way). I am not seeing why I should bring all this up on the Sexual intercourse or Sex talk pages, though, unless you are going to pursue that these article titles be changed. I have stated just about all I can about why I am against changing them. Flyer22 (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
This is neither a legal document nor an article in a scientific journal. It is an encyclopedia article. We should use encyclopedic language. How does Britannica treat this issue? Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The fact that this is an encyclopedia is exactly why one article should be called Sexual intercourse and the other Sex or Sex (biology) (though sexual intercourse is also biological). This is being encyclopedic. Encyclopedias such as Britannica, as shown in the Sexual intercourse article, also call it sexual intercourse and have a separate definition for sex. When I mentioned all that other stuff, it was also about being encyclopedic. The legal and scientific sense should be taken into account. Dictionaries and encyclopedias always take the scientific aspect of a topic that relates to science into account. "Sexual intercourse" is very specific, other than whether or not some people consider certain types of sex acts to be sexual intercourse. "Sex" is not as specific, since it can mean biological sex, sexual intercourse, a variety of sex acts not typically regarded as sexual intercourse, or gender. Unlike Britannica, however, we specify that Sexual intercourse can be defined as more than just penis-vagina intercourse (though it most commonly means that). And, yes, since sex means more than one thing, it seems as though we should have some kind of disambiguation in the title Sex...but it is disambiguated at the top of that article; most people are going to be looking for the topic of sexual intercourse, but will find it immediately after clicking on the Sex article. Flyer22 (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
You make an interesting point. Perhaps you should ask the folks on the WP:COMMONNAME discussion page about this issue. They would know whether or not an exception should be made for "sex." Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
You usually make interesting points as well. But, like I stated, I am not interested in asking about this topic...unless someone is pursuing that these article titles be changed. If you are not going to pursue that these article titles be changed, I do not see the need to ask around about it. Flyer22 (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Possibly useful reference
When I stumbled upon this article, I was reminded of an editorial in a scientific journal that I once read. I've dug it out now and give the reference here, in case somebody would like to use it. Its behind a pay wall, I think, but if needed, I can send anyone interested a PDF. The editorial mainly provides reasons why BRB reserves the use of "gender" only for human studies and asks researchers working with animals to use "sex" instead.
Thanks for this, Crusio. Yes, I very recently talked about the topic of whether or not gender relates to non-humans with Alastair Haines on my talk page -- about how Darkfrog24 wants the lead to state that gender also relates to non-humans. I also noted that in the edit summary. Is that why you brought this up here? Flyer22 (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
What I was going for with that is that "gender" in its general, colloquial sense applies to anything that can be masculine or feminine and that only in its social science definition does it have a meaning that is unique to humans. Yes, fruit flies and fish and dinosaurs have gender, generally speaking. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
LoL, we are truly fortunate to have the editor-in-chief of Genes, Brains and Behaviour helping out on the page.
I think he does right to cite Dunnett as authority for the model that his own journal follows, allowing Wikipedia to make a decision based on an independent reliable source, rather than a Wiki editor's opinion, albeit an expert of the highest order.
To follow through on Darkfrog's comment. I think we might all agree that precise English language usage normally parallels sex with male and female, and gender with masculine and feminine. But couldn't we also agree that there are well-known exceptions?
So, I think Darkfrog is correct to say that if something is termed masculine or feminine usage will normally speak of gender, as with noun classes. However one exception is connectors and fastners, which are said to have gender not sex, but are male and female not masculine and feminine. I think that argues for English speakers reserving masculine and feminine for humans also, with noun classes being the exception.
Crusio's familiarity with scientific usage is one line of evidence and I think settled. Darkfrog's intuition regarding non-humans being said to have gender is correct also (imo), however, because it is certainly true in older linguistic terminology.
Most dictionaries, however, consider the linguistic usage to be related but distinct to the "humans as male and female" usage. This article is not about feminine adjectives, but men and women. It is also not about mares and stallions, as Crusio has demonstrated. Do we really have masculine fruit flies or feminine dinosaurs?
Actually, I would not draw any parallels confining "sex" to "male/female" or "gender" to "masculine/feminine." I find that they both apply to both most of the time. Fruit flies can be male, therefore they are literally masculine even if they are not aesthetically so. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I never state that "gender is a colloquialism" (not in that way), but plenty of people state that it is used in the colloquial sense, as in interchangeably with sex, to denote the condition of being male or female. You have also stated it as a colloquial use, Darkfrog. I don't object to your change in the lead (to "In ordinary speech"), but what is the reason for the change?
Is it because the Colloquialism article says, "A colloquialism is an expression not used in formal speech, writing or paralinguistics" and "Colloquialisms or colloquial language is considered to be characteristic of or only appropriate for casual, ordinary, familiar, or informal conversation rather than formal speech or writing"? Flyer22 (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Flyer. That is why. "Colloquial" does not mean, as I thought it did, "ordinary speech." As such, the word "gender" meaning "state of being male or female, sex" is appropriate for formal use in certain contexts—say, a formal paper about some other topic that simply mentions people's gender in passing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
"Colloquial" can mean ordinary speech, as in "characteristic of or only appropriate for casual, ordinary, familiar, or informal conversation rather than formal speech or writing," but that is why I get what you mean. "Gender" is often considered appropriate for formal speech. Flyer22 (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
^Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Descrimination Against Men
