Talk:Gender

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Gender has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
March 12, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
To-do list for Gender: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • For section "sex": "Here should be a summary of the sex-determination system article and related material, with emphasis on how the categorisation into male and female works, i.e., stuff about sexual dimorphism (how sex is determined in different species). XX chromosomes, SRY genes, reproductive tasks, etc."
  • For section "social category": This needs to be expanded.
  • For section "music": Write about Riepel's theories
  • For section "other languages: Should this section be here at all? See AlexR's comments on the talk page (now in Talk Archive 1).
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2
About archives • Edit this box


Contents

[edit] Developmentgateway.org external link

This link: Gender, Poverty and Development

Was added by an editor whose only contributions have been to promote World Bank Group organizations (The Development Gateway Foundation was started by the World Bank). We have recently uncovered significant edits promoting this group of organizations (see this WikiProject Spam discussion). In the interest of our neutral point of view policy and conflict of interest guideline I've moved the link here for other editors to consider. Thanks. -- Siobhan Hansa 13:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV check/edits on opening paragraph

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) 128.111.95.47 06:56, 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.95.47 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"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. --Cailil 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Further note - I've decided not to remove your comments in teh To Do List but will request comment--Cailil 00:42, 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. --lquilter 01:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.) --lquilter 01:27, 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).
207.47.160.180 You're highlighting some of the problems with the edits by Vita Baddenbold in February. Please see discussion below.--Cailil 22:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LGBT header

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.--SidiLemine 11:40, 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. --90.240.102.48 14:06, 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.--Cailil 01:59, 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--Cailil talk 13:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. The leader as it stands gives too much weight to one meaning of gender as opposed to the others.

While I disagree with many of the comments made by 207.47.160.180 above they are right to query the change. Might I also point out that the previous lead formed the article that was rated GA and A class on the WP 1.0 scale. I suggest that the lead be reverted in part to that of the revision as of 23:51, 15 February 2007. The points recently added about transgender issues need to be kept--Cailil 22:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless there are any objections I will make this revision Tuesday April 3rd.--Cailil 00:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
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--Cailil 20:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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:

[edit] 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.
  • The traditional use of different vocabulary by men and women. See, for instance, Gender differences in spoken Japanese.
  • 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 pronouns he (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 Spanish muchacha (girl) is feminine, but in German Mädchen, the corresponding word, is neuter, and in Irish cailín is masculine. This is why the terms "masculine" and "feminine" are generally preferred to "male" and "female" in reference to grammatical gender.

[edit] Gender as a metaphor

[edit] Connectors and fasteners

Main article: Gender of connectors and fasteners

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.

Image:F plug.jpg
An electrical power male plug, left, and matching female socket, of a type common in many European countries.

[edit] 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.

See Major and minor.

[edit] Spirituality

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]

Any thoughts or objections?... FilipeS 14:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Filipe! Nice quote.
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 Haines 19:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Haines 18:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I think a disambig link to the other uses is a good idea. I broadly agree with your points Alastair, but I think much of what you're saying relates to the Gender identity article more than this one. I say that because this page is (at least currently) an entry on maleness and femaleness in a braoder sense than just human gender. It would be my view that it should remain in this kind of shape. Gender is a parent article and it should be using summary style to summarize the articles directly related to the page (ie grammatical gender and gender neutral language; gender identity and gender role; Gender of connectors and fasteners; Sex/gender distinction biology of gender.
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--Cailil talk 22:01, 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 Haines 02:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Haines 13:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Haines 23:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sex and biology of gender

Should these two sections be merged into one? FilipeS 23:49, 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 Haines 16:40, 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 Haines 16:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Pugsworth 08:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Haines 21:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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
  1. minimal presentation of sexual reproduction relevant to topic attempted
  2. social theories have been copy edited, they cover boundary cases, but could still do with more treatment
  3. the music section still needs research or an expert who knows the sources
  4. language usage is a feature of literature on gender, restriction to English would not reflect a world-wide view

[edit] Main Issues in Literature

  • Language is a big issue in the literature in two ways.
  1. 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).
  2. 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:

  1. clarifies the concept of gender, utilizing the history of language related to it;
  2. introduces the current precision in terminology, which summarizes objective measures of differences;
  3. 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.

Signed, on behalf of the committee, Alastair Haines 04:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template for foreign words

I believe te correct template is Español [edit this text to see it]. es:Español looks very confusing. FilipeS 18:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Filipe, thank you, that tag is new to me.
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 word Mädchen — Mädchen (syntax: ''[[Mädchen]]'').
When linking to foreign language websites, I also mark those with (German), (French) (syntax: {{fr icon}}) 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 (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 Haines 19:15, 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.)

Allow me to be honest: I really dislike the way those links show. And notice that in some languages the colon is used within words, which could, in principle, lead to confusion. FilipeS 19:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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 Haines 19:47, 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. FilipeS 20:03, 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 Haines 20:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automatic addition of "class=GA"

A bot has added class=GA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a good article. If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, BOT Giggabot (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:AHD.jpg

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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References?

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.
Seems like tremendously good news to me. Who was it who said, two brains are better than one? Alastair Haines (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opening paragraph

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)
Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additions under Sociology, POV tag

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)

[edit] 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.

I will allow one week for improvement, at which time I might refer the article to WP:GAR for reassessment. Thanks. Nikki311 23:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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)