Wikipedia talk:Categorizing articles about people/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality/Archive 1

message: I've moved these comments originally by User:Radiant! from the project page.  I think we should use that page to summarize the discussion and any consensus that is reached. -- Samuel Wantman 02:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you must say there's more male scientists than female scientists. A woman may be particularly interested in female scientists (like Marie Curee) but I can't really see people being specifically interested in male scientists rather than scientists as a whole. Its not really sexist, its just something of interest. Redwolf24 (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I have to agree.  I believe the term "male nurse," for example, is very often used in conversation and can be utilitarian insofar as this often designates a nurse of greater physical strength than is expected.  E.g., "Grandpa had a male nurse come in and move him."  Jtmichcock 12:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting point.  On the subject of monarchy, where should we put people like Hatshepsut, who were biologically female but reigned as "kings"?  Anville 15:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments originally on project page 

message: This usually appears in two ways: titles of nobility (e.g. should we have :Category:Monarchs, or should it be :Category:Kings and :Category:Queens?) and professions (e.g. :Category:Women scientists as a subcategory of :Category:Scientists). Interestingly there are hardly any such categories for men. Is it useful to separate the categories for any profession into a male and a female section? Also, if we have it, should it be "female scientist" or "woman scientist" or what?
:Well you must say there's more male scientists than female scientists. A woman may be particularly interested in female scientists (like Marie Curee) but I can't really see people being specifically interested in male scientists rather than scientists as a whole. Its not really sexist, its just something of interest. Redwolf24 (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree.  I believe the term "male nurse," for example, is very often used in conversation and can be utilitarian insofar as this often designates a nurse of greater physical strength than is expected.  E.g., "Grandpa had a male nurse come in and move him."  Jtmichcock 12:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting point.  On the subject of monarchy, where should we put people like Hatshepsut, who were biologically female but reigned as "kings"?  Anville 15:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Gender

message: I think that making categories for race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation etc. is problematic for a number of reasons.  These issues of personal identity are complex, and a simple yes/no category is often not enough to explain individual cases.  These categories also can oddly and inappropriately separate out groups, as if an incidence of, say, ethnicity and profession, always represents a totally separate tradition (sometimes it does but often not).  It's also quite awkward to have some groups (ususually minorities in one way or another) categorized by ethnicity etc. but not others.  But I think there are better alternatives for reflecting personal identity.  Certainly identity issues should be mentioned in each biographical article.  Collections of such information I think belong better in lists than categories, as lists can be annotated for complex issues and don't establish a separate hierarchy for minorities (in the broad sense) in the categorization structure.  For an example of how this might work, see List of Jews.--Pharos 17:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternatives to categories 

message: This discussion has been ongoing since September 1. I suggest it's time to come to some conclusions and wrap it up. Cheers!  BD2412 talk 05:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrap up. 

message: I don't think this got covered above, but what about categorizing Wikipedians themselves? There are currently :Category:Queer Wikipedians and :Category:LGBT Wikipedians. Someone is attempting to merge them, insisting that they describe the same thing, which to me is patently untrue. If "queer" were merged into "lgbt," there would be some users who could not use that categorization because it would be untrue for them, yet it would cause a lot of hullaballoo to recreate a category that has been deleted. In this case, there would no longer be a category for users in the above "grey area" that BD2412 cites. What should the policy be regarding categorization of Wikipedia users? --Jacquelyn Marie 04:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really not too clear on how a person can be "queer" and not "LGBT". Maybe that's just me...but I don't think it is. Bearcat 19:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See the queer article for details on nuance. While it is generally used to mean gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered, it also covers other things, such as asexuals, intersex persons, polyamorists, genderqueers, and even, sometimes but rarely, heterosexuals who engage in sexual practices not embraced by the mainstream (such as BDSM). As I am a pomosexual, I much prefer the term "queer" to "LGBT." --Jacquelyn Marie 21:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorry, one last thing to add