Talk:Gender/Archive 1

message: I know you've all been over this, but the use of genders for connectors- as far as I can tell- probably predates the field of gender studies altogether (I'm assuming it started around the 1970's or later).  Thus it seems rather odd that the use of gender=sex in the sociology of the past generation or two led to mechanics and plumbers and engineers at least two generations ago using the terms.  May I propose that the paragraph be reworded as:
The use of gender as a synonym for sex, referring to the physical characteristics commonly used to differentiate male from female, is typically considered deprecated in modern sociology.  The use of "gender" to describe the style of protrusions and/or indentations on connectors and fasteners, however, predates the development of modern gender studies and is thus considered correct in engineering, electronics, and related fields.
--BillyL 06:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of genders for grammar dates to Protagoras in the fifth century. Hyacinth 07:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry to bring it up again.... 

message: I just noticed that AlexR, without even consulting the talk page, tried reverting the same thing he did before.  The only difference is that he didn't call it vandalism this time, he just said it was reverting a large removal of text.  After I reverted back to my version, his edit disappeared for some reason (it does not show up in the history), so it looks on the history page like I reverted my version to my version, instead of reverting AlexR's version to mine.  Is this a bug or did an admin do something? -Nathan J. Yoder 14:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AlexR's edit got removed?  A bug with Mediawiki? 

message: I have been lazy, my apologies for this. However, after the RfC there was some concord (albeit with dissent) to try to make this page into an encyclopedic article about gender, typically as an overview of its various meanings with pointers to more detailed presentations. 
Especially, this page has to move away from its attempt to be normative about what gender should mean. I hope we all agree that it is not Wikipedia's business to tell people how a term is correctly applied, especially in the present case, where this very debate is ideologically loaded. (I won't repeat the debate, see above for some lucid explanations of the viewpoints pro et contra.) 
As I tried to read up on the subject, I quite fell in love with its different yet related meanings, and think this will make for a wonderful article.
I have tried to make something like that. I also gave my best shot at a definition of the term gender that I hope encompasses all its uses and tries to find a common aspect of these uses (namely, the distinction into categories male and female, or lack thereof.) I assume that this very definition needs more work—improve it!
Even though I think what I uploaded is a pretty good framework, it is far from finished. I think I did a good job on some of the passages, but I ran out of time and energy and think the wiki community will do a better job that I. Frankly, there are some sections about which I know very little, and where I have cut-and-pasted from other WP sources. Attention from the cognoscenti  is welcome. Incidentally, the electrical connectors section has been cleaned up by me, much of what the original article said is just plain wrong. (As far as I have been able to determine.) But have an extra look.
The current text is full of HTML comments indicating what I think is missing/lacking/bad/wrong/too little. Have a look.
The section on grammatical gender in indo-european languages is too long compared to the rest of the article, and I hope to be able to fix that real soon now. I am aiming for Wikipedia: Summary style, so each section ideally should be three long, good paragraphs with a pointer to one or more “full” articles. Arbor 07:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary style page uploaded

message: I flat-out removed a newly added section on gender affirmation. Some parts were simply rants which have no place here. The rest seemed interesting enough, and I tried to reword it, but in doing so I became convinced that I had actually no idea what was meant by the term. Maybe somebody who wants to fight for this concept would like to try to re-insert a paragraph, hopefully with a more transparent explanation. Arbor 09:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're being too generous... that section was clearly added by someone who was interested in promoting a POV, not improving this article. Catamorphism 10:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender affirmation 

message: It is an odd reference - can we replace it with something more serious? Anyone feel strongly about keeping it? - Samsara contrib talk 22:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it doesn't contribute much. Be bold! Catamorphism 22:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I made the change and also nominated for :WP:AID. - Samsara contrib talk 22:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I put that in originally. The examples found by MwoTD (Harper, NYT,etc.) were all good, informative, and relevant. Since I myself didn't check those sources, the reference to MwoTD is standard procedure. The point made by the removed paragraph is certainly a very good description of current use. Unless we find a better description of current use, I see little reason to remove it. I did find a sterling reference for this useage shift within academia (Haig), and have made good use of it. But the article still needs a usage description outside of academia (for example, in the press, of which Harpers, NYT, etc. are good examples). We could dig out such examples ourselves, but why should we? We want to avoid Original Research. Arbor 11:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The etymology section looked very patchworkish with all those indented literal quotations. Can we somehow make it look more flowing and coherent? Ideally, we want this article to be more than a collection of random quotes, and we should avoid giving that impression, even if unfounded. I'm fine with keeping it if we can make it look smart. - Samsara contrib talk 21:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maven's word of the Day 

message: OK, User:Ntennis has opened up the can of worms that is the definition of the very term. This is great, and I am sure the page improves from it, but maybe we can discuss some issues here—just to prevent a tedious and potentially confrontational edit war. Some of the things that are important to me:
# Gender should not be a term that is defined for homo sapiens in the first paragraph. (Currently, it's in the second sentence. I liked my own, very general definition that used lots of concepts (words, things, organisms). The second paragraph would be a great place to give extra attention to homo sapiens. The third paragraph of the introduction would be a great place to point to controversies.
# The fact that "some people" use gender in contrast to sex is important, but not important enough for the very first paragraph. Because at least as many people use gender as a synonym for sex. In fact, many more do. (See the paper I linked that actually studies this.) The idea that gender is not sex is (1) new, (2) confined to English, (3) confined to certain parts of the social sciences. It cannot become the norm here. I want the article to explain this, in fact I have written a good part of that explanation myself, but we need to be careful to not have this article "take sides". What we could do, after a first paragraph that aims to explain the germ in general, is "Gender is used both as a synomym for (biological) sex and also in contrast to sex as a ...". Or something like that. I am sure I have such a formulation in there already.
# What I would really like is to have the first sentence end with "... classification in to masculine or feminine, or sometimes, the  lack thereof". Except that is not very elegant or clear. But I would like to say "mostly masculine/feminine, but sometimes neuter (as in grammar) or common (as in grammar or transgender studies)". A better wordsmith than me needs to have a go at that.
Arbor 08:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your response! First, I can put your mind at ease about edit warring — it's not my style :) Think of my edit as an offering that others can take or leave as they choose. I've tried to incorporate your suggestions into the lead section. hope it's an improvement? I went with "male" and "female" rather than "masculine" and "feminine" to avoid confusion. A feminine male would still give their gender as male when filling out a form. ntennis 08:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: P.s my dictionary (the standard one that came with my operating system) defines gender as: "the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones) : traditional concepts of gender | [as adj. ] gender roles."
I think this is a great idea, and I would just like to point out that in grammar gender is not necessarily restricted to masculine, feminine, and neuter. In fact, gender (or noun classes) may have no relation at all with sexuality (see Bantu languages).
By the way, I was thinking of rewritting the article on grammatical gender a bit, which is still a little messy. Take a look. FilipeS 11:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Grammatical gender into fem/masc/neut (as introduced by Aristotle) makes sense primarily for Indo-European languages. (See my "old" Grammatical Gender section linked above.) For other language families, the preferred term is noun class. Arbor 12:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That's exactly the kind of stuff I want the Grammatical Gender subsection to talk about. You should have a go at it. Arbor 15:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussing the definition

message: Later gender theorists has come to abandon this distinction, to appreceate the flexible nature of gendered behaviour. R. W. Collins, Randall Collinson and Jeff Hearn are major spokesmen for seeing gender as a sort of "doing"; The individual does his or her gender in ways that emphasise their gender, and this is what gender is about.
I've removed this contribution because I have a number of problems with it. Who are these people? Why are they the most prominent spokespeople for gender as performance? (I would think Judith Butler would be high on this list.) Are the names misspelled? Because I get nothing from Google for "Randall Collinson" gender, and nothing relevant for "R. W. Collins" gender.  Also, the statement is somewhat POV - it seems to assume that gendered behavior is flexible. (This happens to be my POV, for what it's worth.) Finally, grammar and spelling need attention. FreplySpang (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic edit by anonymous user 

message: Just a few thoughts on this. In Thailand the "lady-boys" are apparently considered as a third gender (based on what I've heard from travellers who've been there). 
In Indonesia, transvestites and transexuals (who dress as female or perhaps take hormones to become more feminine) are called "waria", a compound of the word for woman (wanita) and man (pria). The level of social acceptance is surprisingly high and a waria can even become a local celebrity (based on my observations in Surabaya, East Java). However, I couldn't say that they are actually considered a third gender - I'm not clear on this. Also the term is very broad and includes gay men who don't identify as women, but find this to be one way of expressing themselves which is socially accepted. --Singkong2005 02:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have added refs for this section and linked to the article third gender. ntennis 01:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third gender 

message: I also did a bit of a web search, but it would have taken hours to get anywhere much. Here's what I found interesting: 
*Gender, Development and the HIV Epidemic seems interesting.  added. --Singkong2005 00:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Online resources on "gender and development"

message: Arbor, I noticed you reverted my change to the sentence: "Since the 14th century, the word is also used as a synonym for biological sex". I felt that "biological" was misleading, as people at that time probably didn't see sex as biologically determined, but rather some other kind of innate state of being. The quotes that are used to illustrate the point also don't back up a biological interpretation: "The Psyche, or soul, of Tiresias is of the masculine gender"; "the sun is there assumed to be of the feminine gender" and "black divinities of the feminine gender". Is there another way we can phrase this? ntennis 08:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point that I had missed. The thing I want to make clear is that gender is a synonym for sex where sex means biological sex (as opposed to sexual intercourse). It's really a double problem with sex itself having multiple meanings. I agree that biological is pretty misleading when we talk about the poetic sense. Maybe we should just use a disambiguation link? Or "Gender is used as a synonym for sex, i.e., for the division into male and female." Division of what, though? Not of nouns or of colour schemes. Not of organisms either, because Sun is not one. By all means revert me if you have a good solution. Arbor 15:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "biological sex" 

message: I removed the following text from Connectors and fasteners. Extended explanations are best left to the article Gender of connectors and fasteners, which is linked from the section. --Singkong2005 00:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree. The points about hermaphrodites and plugs versus male is exactly that the current article is about (namely, why and how are things classified into genders, and how this often does not quite work along the male–female dichotomy). Those are great examples. Moreover, the article Gender of connectors and fasteners has little chance to ever evolve into something more than three paragraphs, so there is no need for it existing in the first place. I suggest to keep all the information at Gender and redirect the connector article hither. In fact, originally the material was all here, but was refactored into a separate article by editors who wanted Gender to be only about sociology. I do agree that the section you removed would benefit from a more concise presentation. Arbor 06:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point - interesting points about gender classification and "only about sociology." It seems we agree that extended descriptions aren't suitable if they're just lists of types of connectors etc. Descriptions of the relevance to gender do belong in this article (assuming there's sources for these views, or if they are simple, uncontroversial observations). If you want to rewrite and put it back, I support that. I'm still inclined to think that the separate article, Gender of connectors and fasteners, is needed, so that there's a place for stuff that's more relevant to those interested in technical/trades/hardware issues. Cheers, --Singkong2005 01:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connectors and fasteners 

message: 1. "Some theologians have described the Holy Spirit in feminine terms."
Indeed this statement is true,
but it does not represent either historical mainstream theology,
nor the majority view among current theologians.
This is a big subject, and the sentence above isn't adequate as a summary.
This is an extreme analogy, but it's a bit like summarizing cosmology by saying,
"There are people alive today that believe the world is flat."
Just a tip-off from a baby theologian (me).
2. I think the German section is very helpful.
It helps clarify the difference between concepts and terminology.
There are three distinct concepts in "gender debates:"
(a) physical characteristics
(b) personal identity, and
(c) social role.
The German identifies these unambiguously.
However, when reading English writers on the subject,
one needs to be aware that there are sometimes ideological loadings
associated with differing systems of terminology.
Personally, I would keep the German section,
and edit the English section down to a minimum.
Alastair Haines 14:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two comments 

message: It says "need citation" for the sentance about pink changing from a masculine color to a feminine color.  This citation could be from the book Pink Think, but I don't have time to look up all the info to make the citation.  If someone else wants to do it, I'm sure it's in there, in the first couple of chapters.  
Dfziggy 20:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pink Think citation 

message: Mention should probably be made of feminine and masculine cadences. I don't have time to get into this at length, however. Dysprosia 09:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re music 

message: Why are two fruit flies pictured here? Wouldn’t a creature more identifiably male or female be more appropriate (assuming the purpose is to show a male and female)? The caption sounds like it belongs in an article on fly biology. —Frungi 04:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fruit flies? wtf? 

message: A hidden comment on the Etymology section asks for a confirmation of the following:
Gender comes from Middle English gendre, from Latin genus, all meaning "kind", "sort", or "type". Ultimately from the Proto-Indo-European root gen, which is also the root for "kind", "king" and many others.
Well, this is not exactly validation, but here's what I found at List of Proto-Indo-European roots:
*ǵenH₁- (*ǵénH₁ō [1ps]) → to give birth → Gk. genos, Lat. genus, Eng. cyn/kin; cyning/king
FilipeS 22:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Genus

message: Hi, is there a grammatical term for words like "person", where you do not know the natural gender for? 
Other such words are "human being", "child", "men" as plural for "person" and there are some more. If there exists a term, it should be mentioned in the article. --217.18.178.163 08:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generic? FilipeS 19:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genus of "Person" 

message: Substituted at 20:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment