DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Woman

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

    "Biological women"

    [edit]

    @Lukewarmbeer While I recognize the intent of Biological women are at greater risk of certain diseases like breast cancer, I'm of the opinion that "biological women" is a term that's vague and unhelpful. I hesitate to suggest changing to "cisgender women", since it's coming immediately after a description of trans and intersex women. That further complicates choosing an accurate and appropriately encompassing term since trans men and some intersex people who may not be women would also fall into the descriptor, hence why I elected to remove the adjective altogether. I concede that Women are... is still rather unhelpful, but I found it to at least be less so.

    Would welcome suggestions of possible alternatives. LaffyTaffer💬(she/they) 16:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Also pinging @PuppyMonkey who made the addition initially. LaffyTaffer💬(she/they) 17:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I take your point and in some respects it is a good one.
    Do you mind giving me a little time to come back with a considered alternative (if I can) that might meet with general approval. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally! There's no deadline after all. LaffyTaffer💬(she/they) 17:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    People with breasts (including most cis women, many trans women and some cis men) are at greater risk of breast cancer than people without breasts (including most cis men and some cis women). It is correct to simplify this fact to Women are..., since "greater risk" already implies that we're talking about the trend among women in aggregate, not individuals. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 17:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Really it’s anyone with enough estrogen is their system, a category that just happens to consist mainly of women both cis and trans Snokalok (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    biological woman is a scientifically meaningless term strongly associated with hate movements, which should obviously be avoided in Wikivoice. When this article makes normative statements about female bodies which would exclude some minority, they should be qualified with typically or usually. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 17:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll let the experts get on with it then :0 Lukewarmbeer (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree that "biological woman is a scientifically meaningless term strongly associated with hate movements, which should obviously be avoided in Wikivoice." It is understood and used by common folk who are not briefed on the ideological debates around gender especially the meaning of "cis". Masterhatch (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From the AP Stylebook:

    Avoid terms like biological male, which opponents of transgender rights sometimes use to oversimplify sex and gender, is often misleading shorthand for assigned male at birth, and is redundant because sex is inherently biological.

    Other style guides for writing about gender and sexuality [1][2][3][4] give identical advice.
    –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 03:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Style guides are written by "people in the know". The term biological female (or male) is common folk speak. I took issue with your argument that biological shouldn't be used in wikivoice because it is a "scientifically meaningless term strongly associated with hate movements". Scientifically meaningless? Anyways, sure there are hate groups that use it, but it is a term used and understood by regular people who aren't familiar with the jargon of the gender movement. Phrases like "assigned male at birth" aren't representative of common speak either. An example would be Scott Moe, premier of Saskatchewan, using biological: Sask. Party leader promises to swiftly introduce school changeroom policy if re-elected. Anyways, that's all I have to say on this. Masterhatch (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not written in common folk speak.
    Anyways, the source linked is... an illustrative example of an anti-trans politician using biological as an ambiguous shorthand for assigned sex. I suppose "legalize teen genital inspections"[5] just isn't as catchy. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 16:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Use plain English
    One of the founding rules of wiki is to use plain English
    And out of topic, reliable fact checkers seem to indicate ‘genital inspection’ is nothing more than fear mongering
    https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/apr/13/tweets/kansas-trans-athlete-law-doesnt-authorize-genital/https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/jan/18/occupy-democrats/occupy-democrats-grossly-twists-virginia-school-ba/
    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mark-cole-controversy/ Cherry567 (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Masterhatch. ‘Women are …’ is plain, accurate, and lack political connotations on either side Cherry567 (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the point Sarah Richardson has been making with respect to "sex as a biological variable" for years - statements like these are imprecise and give the incorrect impression. See e.g. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35492240/ Katzrockso (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoxySaunders, almost all humans have breasts. The difference is that anglophone men (in the gender sense) don't like to use that word to describe that body part. There are only two ways for a human to not have breasts. One is surgical removal, and the other is birth defects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I support the removal of biological from that sentence. Simply saying "Woman are..." I think is the best option there. It is clear. Concise. And avoids any political / ideological connotations of cisgender and biological. Masterhatch (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying to look at the actual evidence, it looks like cisgender women are at a higher risk for breast cancer than trans men (afab trans people), who are at a higher risk than transgender women (amab trans people), who are at a higher risk than cisgender men. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36789830/ I agree with just saying "women" in general in the lead is simplest. Seven77seas (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Edits

    [edit]

    @Seven77seas I suggest you self-revert. I tried to revert just one edit but it wouldn't let me. Some edits that do not improve or worsen the quality and accuracy of the article include [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] and many more. All of the removed material that is uncited is either true or sources are easy to find. It does not improve the encyclopedia to remove correct information that is currently not sourced. I found only 2 edits that I felt improved encyclopedic value of the article.

    I will seek sources for the large number of removed statements, but keep in mind that it wastes a lot of editor time to have to go through and figure out specifically which accurate statements you removed as uncited. Katzrockso (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "There are various words used to refer to the quality of being a woman. The term "womanhood" merely means the state of being a woman; "femininity" is used to refer to a set of typical female qualities associated with a certain attitude to gender roles; "womanliness" is like "femininity", but is usually associated with a different view of gender roles." these are largely dictionary definitions, do you think that a dictionary needs to be cited to describe the various terminology here? The most synthetic statement here is the one about "womanliness", which could have and should have been simply edited to more accurately reflect how "womanliness" is described in dictionaries.
    The edit about "femininity" reduces the accuracy of the encyclopedia - the original version was accurate, while after your edit it is not. Katzrockso (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Like cisgender women, trans women may have any sexual orientation" does this seriously need a citation? Does anyone contest this? Like here is one if you insist, but that banally true statements need citations is not a requirement in Wikipedia.
    Another edit that decreased the quality of the encyclopedia was to remove the information about lupus, breast cancer and ovarian cancer. The source may not have supported the statement, but why remove it instead of going to find a better source like [12]? Katzrockso (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I replaced the information on health with the same amount of information; it would be exhaustive to list every single condition women are at greater or less risk for, so as opposed to greatly expanding the section, I simply kept the same number of diseases listed and made it accurate for the citation that was being used. Genuinely, unsure why this is incorrect to do; it contained the same amount of information, but was correctly cited, after I was done; and such statements *should* be cited; it is not common knowledge whether lupus or lung cancer are more prevalent in one sex or another. Seven77seas (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that whether lupus or lung cancer have difference incident rates is not common knowledge, but you removed the information about cervical and ovarian cancer. That these diseases primarily affect women is very important information to have on a page about women! Katzrockso (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I really, truly, welcome you to add information on more female-specific or disproportionately-female diseases. As I stated, I didn't want to add tons of new health information, and I wanted the information to be cited, so I just standardized what was written to what was in the citation. The section could probably use some expansion, though. Seven77seas (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I do think those statements should be cited; in my general usage, femininity and womanliness are synonyms. I can add dictionary citations later. I've re-added the statement that some cultures expect women to primarily work and others expect women to primarily do childcare. Seven77seas (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree that the statement about womanliness is not accurate, or at least should be cited, but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and remove other accurate statements along the way. Katzrockso (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is getting difficult to read, but I also (obviously) strongly disagree that the statement about femininity is incorrect; How in the world is it not true that "Different people have held femininity to be socially constructed, biologically influenced, or on some point in the spectrum between "nature" and "nurture"?" Seven77seas (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the only one I agree with you on is that the statement that some parts of the world expect women to be domestic and other parts expect women to work may not need to be cited, it is so vague.
    The rest of your claims, I strongly disagree with.
    -The article briefly notes that women are at higher risk of certain diseases; why should it not briefly note that women are at lower risk of certain diseases? It is cited in the article and is equally relevant.
    -The statement that women must have functional uteruses to give birth is a more debatable statement than that many women are able to give birth; as noted, not all women with functional uteruses are fertile, and some women may have diseases of the endometrium or uterus but give birth; changing it to a more general statement seems more defensible, and more reflective of the thorough information on female reproduction contained below.
    -This page is sex-specific; why should the page prominently link to pages like 'virgin' and 'maid' (which just redirects to virgin) when these pages are not sex-specific, cover virgins and virginity of both sexes, and the pages like "virgin" are already linked in the text below where they are relevant? Seven77seas (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've re-added the statement that some parts of the world expect women to be domestic and other parts expect women to work. Seven77seas (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ope, and had apparently already mentioned this in another comment. Seven77seas (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    meant "maiden" here in this reply Seven77seas (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [13] is a source for the claim either way.
    "Virginity" has been associated with womanhood for centuries, this is an analysis anthropologists and historians have been making for centuries. Sure, we could link to the more specific section of Virginity#Female virginity, but how does removing the terminology altogether help? Katzrockso (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll rephrase what I think I've already said. This is a section of "Related articles" to the topic "Woman" and subtopic "Terminology". If it's a word that doesn't specifically refer to women, and women only (and MOST women at that, not a niche term), why should it be listed as "Further Information:" under the "Terminology for Women" section?
    There's a pretty-near-endless list of unisex words that could be listed under See: also that have been strongly associated with women or are included in anthropological or feminist analyses of sex and gender. Should we also list Adult, Legal Person, Priest, Laborer, Prostitute? Women's belonging in these classes have been subjects of feminist and anthropological discourse. What about Damsel in Distress, Tomboy, Bimbo, Feminazi, Jezebel, Spinster? These are all terms relating to women specifically, but not most women, and that have also been addressed in feminist writing.
    The line I'm proposing for "phrases linked under the Further Information for Terminology for Women" is "terms that are used specifically for women and apply to most women". (Using that line, I think we should also take Goodlady (and potentially Lady?) out as well, interesting as they are.)
    Is highlighting that particular phrase 'virgin' over all other unisex phrases at the top of the "Terminology for Woman" section actually defensible on objective grounds? Seven77seas (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The results from that survey could easily become a citation for the statement, but I think the format of the survey itself is not. Seven77seas (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]