Talk:Boy

message: A nipper originally was a boy send out by an adult (often his own father) as pickpocket, later a boy assistant to various professions such as a carter, still later (recorded since 1859) a boys' age term roughly equal to toddler
The "nipper" word link to the page Nipper, which is "the dog model for the painting His Late Master's Voice". That is completely irrelevant to the word mention in the sentence. Please remove the reference link.
222.252.103.22 (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done  Chzz  ►  03:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 222.252.103.22, 26 September 2011 

message: Another context where "boy" can be used regardless of age, which as of yet I don't see in the Article, is to denote the geographic origin of a male. For example, I myself am now 23 (a good 5 years past legal adulthood at 18) and on some occasions I refer to myself as a "Pennsylvania Boy." This has absolutely nothing to do with my age, but it does refer to my sex and the fact that I'm from Pennsylvania. 
For a more famous example, the Beatles are often called "the Boys from Liverpool" or more rarely "the Liverpool Boys," again reflecting nothing to do with age but only the fact that all 4 are male and all 4 grew up in Liverpool, England. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [Insert place name] Boy 

message: This page should not be speedily deleted because... 
Only the picture is to be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cattrap (talk • contribs) 09:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion 

message: The picture :File:Indian_school_boy.jpg has to be removed , since it points towards a particular person and his/her location is pin-pointed in the caption of the picture.So the picture seems to be of personal use; and is useless considering this article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Indian_school_boy.jpg  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cattrap (talk • contribs) 09:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the earlier image.  I haven't taken the time to figure out when the change was made.  If you desire, you can continue nominating the boy on the stairs for deletion on commons. Ryan Vesey 03:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion 

message: This article includes a large number of assertions that seem like common sense but that lack citations. This topic is pretty well documented, so we should be able to find expert opinion about what boys are. The article also doesn't spend much time describing boys. Instead, it spends a lot of time discussing the various ways that the term "boy" is used. The disambiguation statement says that this article is about young male humans, and I agree that that's what it should be about. Maybe we need a secondary page for "Boy (word)," as we have for "Man." On a related note, the article has an "overview" section, which is contrary to style guidelines. The lead should be the overview (see WP:LEAD). Leadwind (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  lack of citations, limited coverage of topic, overview section 

message: I don't frankly see the point of the lede image, which could be either of a boy or a girl and which is not an especially striking image in any case. An image of a nude infant boy in which the penis is visible might have some encyclopaedic value in the context. Perhaps the Wikipedia administrator , whose new born baby boy is apparently pictured (discussed  here) may provide one? C1cada (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clearly defined what does and doesn't pass for an image of a boy here. The image currently in the lead is clearly a baby picture (birth–23 months) and not that of a boy (2–12 years). Also there is a policy (somewhere) about using images of identifiable people. SlightSmile 16:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy is here Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. The relevant guidance here is that in the case of children, the parent's or guardian's consent must be given, which plainly must be the case here. A more relevant Commons issue is  Not educationally useful. My real beef about this is that it's not an especially fine image (I absolutely don't mean that in any spiteful way) and we lose an opportunity to display one that is. I think that's such a pity. c1cada (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede image 

message: Please change Boi (gender) to Boi (slang) per page move. Thanks. 82.132.234.79 (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Done —  (e • t • c) 16:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request

message: edit to the above
41.138.195.43 (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The uploader resides in Bangalore, India, so it only makes sense that he took this photo in that or near that location. Also, you have not provided any sources to provide this photo was taken in Africa. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 17:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would have agreed with k6ka (I was the editor originally to link this fine image into the article - it's curious how few fine images there are of boys on Commons). However the original uploader has now clarified. c1cada (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2015 

message: Bjburke (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2017 

message: still missing 84.158.125.98 (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 04:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2017 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Boy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060501135951/http://www.boyhoodstudies.com/ to http://www.boyhoodstudies.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: boys learn better in co-ed schools while girls learn better in girls only schools. 144.132.99.46 (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: Do you have a reliable source to support your statement?  DRAGON BOOSTER  ★ 05:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sakura CarteletTalk 22:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2018 

message: In the US, "small fry" and "half-pint" are not inherently insulting, nor specific to boys. In fact, when used by a parent they are terms of endearment. (In literature, see Laura Ingalls Wilder's Little House series, in which "Pa" refers to Laura as "Half-Pint" frequently.) Older siblings might use these as terms of endearment as well, though they can also be used antagonistically. Most of these terms can be used in a diminutive sense, but that depends on the speaker and the context. "Small fry" and "half-pint" belong in this list, but they should not be described as "rather insulting." Like all other epithets, context is everything. Dcs002 (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small fry and half-pint, from "Non-function specific analogous terms" 

message: The most apparent difference between a typical boy and a typical girl is the brain, not genitalia  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:11AF:457:FD00:54A3:FD9C:2CC:884B (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  brain 

message: Please cite the first paragraph in the "Etymology" section as coming from the etymology source that is listed at the bottom of the article because that is where the information comes from. Wiki.funness (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done – Þjarkur (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2019 

message: You can take a look at the girl's page to get an idea of how boys are treated in the modern world. Lack of concern shown for the boys is deplorable. There's a section on girls page about child labor and how it affects girls but it is common knowledge boys are the majority of child labor and in fact, they are the 90% of hard adult level child laborers. Issues to add
* An alarming number of boys dropping out of schools and falling behind girls.
* sexual abuse
* Genital mutilation of boys.
* Child soldiers.
* Lack of privacy for boys in schools, camps, hospitals compared to girls.
* and many others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/25/male-circumcision-ceremonies-death-deformity-africa
https://www.edweek.org/media/every100girls-32boys.pdf
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aksoullanka  (talk • contribs) May 10, 2019 (UTC)
: Collapsed rant per WP:NOTFORUM and  WP:TPO. Mathglot (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between the Boy page and the Girl Page 

message: I'm moving some sections that are riddled with assumptions and original research here to the talk page, where we can attempt to separate legitimate, verifiable content from OR, and then reinstate the content, properly sourced. The sections are available in the history, of course, but they can be more easily worked on, here.
Much of this information has been present for a long time; see for example this 2006 version, back when sourcing was much less observed than it is now. But the fact that it has been here so long unchallenged, does not exempt it from our verifiability policy. Editors here may want to consider another approach (which I would support), namely WP:TNT.
Many occasions occur when an adult male is commonly referred to as a boy. A person's boyfriend or loverboy may be of any age; this even applies to a 'working' call-boy, toyboy (though younger than his lover). Reflecting the general aesthetic preference for youth, one says pretty boy (e.g. in the nickname of Charles Arthur "Pretty Boy" Floyd, who committed his first bank robbery at age 30) or Adonis (name of a mythological youth) even when a male beauty is clearly of riper age. In terms (used pejoratively or neutrally) for homosexuals such as batty boy (alongside "batty man"; from "bottom") or "bum boy", age is not essential, but the connotation of immaturity can strengthen insulting use.
Groups of adult male friends engaged in male bonding are often called "the boys". It is most common to refer to men, irrespective of age or even in an adult age group, as boys in the context of a team (especially all-male), such as old boys for networking of adult men who attended the same school(s) as boys, or as professional colleagues, e.g. "the boys at the office, - police station etc." (often all adults). The members of a student fraternity can be called frat(ernity) boys, technically preferable to the pleonasm frat-bro(ther), and remain so for life as adults, after graduation.
In sports 'the boys' commonly refers to the teammates; e.g., UK football managers quite often refer to their players as "The boy so-and-so" and this usage is by no means restricted to the youngest players, though it is rarely applied to the most senior.
In U.S. urban slang, particularly in African American and Latino slang, the term boy is used with a possessive as meaning friend (my boy, his boys), presumably as a reduction of homeboy, originally a male from the same area.
In some cases, the word boy is used merely to designate the age of the (male) person, irrespective of the function, as in altar boy, a minor acting as liturgical acolyte, or in Boy Scouts, an organisation specifically for boys. Thus the compound -man can then be replaced by -boy, as in footboy; or boy is simply added, either as a prefix (e.g., in boy-racer) or as a suffix (e.g., in Teddy Boy).
An adult equivalent (with or without -man) is not to be expected when -boy designates an apprentice (for which some languages use a compound with the equivalent of boy, e.g. leerjongen 'learning boy' in Dutch) or lowest rank implying specific on the job training if promotion is to be obtained, as in kitchen boy. Similarly schoolboy only applies to minors; the modern near-synonym pupil originally designated a minor in Roman law as being under a specific adult's authority, as in loco parentis.
Expressions such as "boys will be boys" (i.e., a male always retains a tendency for boyish games or mischief) allude to stereotypically ascribed characteristics of boys and men; in the term tomboy, a woman's (according to the counterpart-gender stereotype) uncharacteristically bold nature is even described solely by comparing her to a boy.
The use of "boy", (like kid) in fantasy or descriptive nicknames for adult men, may also connote to an informal or naughty image of boyhood.
In such terms as 'city boy' or 'home boy', the age notion is at most anachronistic, as they indicate any male who grew up (or by extension lived a long time) in a certain environment.
Section Usage for adults moved here from article.
. . . 
The term 'our boys' is commonly used for a nation's soldiers, often with sympathy. Given the physical demands of battle, recruits are preferably in their physical prime, but adult professionals remain included in the term as long as they remain in service.
A case where the term is formally used for (adult) men is sideboy, a member of an even-numbered group of seamen posted in two rows at the Quarterdeck when a visiting dignitary boards or leaves a ship.
In the Ottoman Empire, the young, mainly Christian military recruits for life (often forcibly enlisted by 'devshirme') were officially called acemi oglanlar ("novice boys").
Thus "-boy" can enter the nickname for a particular nation's soldiers, e.g. the US (infantry) doughboy, or a specific force, e.g. Fly-boy is slang for an airman.
Furthermore, specific terms refer to minors used in the armed forces:
*Drummer boy
*Ship's boy is a minor in naval training; boy seaman refers to specific, low-paid apprentice ranks, notably in the Royal Navy; until the middle of the twentieth century, they were the only Navy staff subject (like their civilian age-peers, at home and in school) to physical punishment, usually spanking, traditionally administered on the bare bottom (as in English public schools; the adults were lashed on the backside above the waist), either formally (ordered in court martial, publicly executed on deck) or, more often but less severely, summary; the same was true of a midshipman, also a minor, but indicated with "-man" rather than "-boy", possibly reflecting their higher status as future naval officers. Sometimes in ex-servicemen's parades, an old man is described as "ship's boy" to say that he served so classed in the Navy as a boy.
However, when a minor in military employ is considered (historically often far less restrictive then nowadays) too young to be a 'normal' warrior (illegal under present UN rules, but without precise enforceable age limits), he's called boy soldier, regardless whether he's used as an armed fighter or only in logistic or similar functions such as bearer.
Section §Specific uses and compounds§§Military moved here from the article. Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a lot more unsourced OR in the article going back a decade or more that could be removed, but now I wonder if trying to "fix" the article is really the best approach, or whether it would be easier just to WP:NUKEIT and start over. So, I'm going to hold off moving any more unsourced content here, for the time being.  Please comment at #Blow it up and start over.  Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved OR sections to Talk page 

message: This article has so much unsourced original research (see previous section) and poor internal organization, that I'm not sure there's much here worth saving.  This may be one of those rare cases, where it's better to just blow the whole thing up, and start over from scratch. 
I think an incremental approach where one tries to navigate from where the article is now, to a decent subsection hierarchy, and to separate unsourced original research from valid statements and organize the whole thing into a coherent whole, may be far more difficult than just starting over.  I support a restart from zero, and wanted to hear what others thought. Mathglot (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Mathglot, I agree. There isn't much worth saving here. As per my April 25 post above ("multiple issues"), I think it would be ideal to have expert involvement as well. SunCrow (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

text: I don't really object to this idea, either. WanderingWanda (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blow it up and start over 

message: I note that Rjensen has added numerous additional sources to Further reading.  This is exactly what we need, regardless which approach we take going forward.  Mathglot (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks. let me highly recommend the very rich encyclopedia on Boyhood in America Rjensen (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New sources 

message: It's not possible in the present climate to write a sane and decent article about what it is, or could be, to be a boy. The current politically correct position is that males are toxic. Boys are males, so that's an end to the matter. The article should be reduced to a stub which merely states that boys are the precursors to the vileness and political incorrectness of being an adult male. – Epipelagic (talk) 05:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Epipelagic, I hear your concern and frustration. I sincerely hope your conclusion is mistaken. We will see. SunCrow (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  (>2 years later) This section is not a reality check. I think that comment above yours (made by someone who has never openly edited this article) was counterproductive, feeding negative attitudes, promoting a political agenda, and clearly not an attempt to improve the article or our encyclopedia. I think it was inappropriate for this talk page. I just found this discussion, and I'm sorry it ended so abruptly. This article just needs a little help. I think you and Mathglot put a lot of thought and effort into this badly needed rewrite idea, and it seems to have shut down abruptly. I guess I just wanted to encourage you if you have the time & energy! Dcs002 (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Reality check

message: Gee, I really want this page to be as good as or better than the Wikipedia page on Girls. But anyways, clicking on each of the External links, the second one "BoyhoodStudies Forum" now goes to some St. Louis (USA) news website (https://www.stl.news/). I don't want to delete stuff off of this mediocre page, but until there is an actual, maybe alternate similar topic, I am deleting that external link, if that 's ok. Jimj wpg (talk) 08:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me, Jimj wpg. SunCrow (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "as good as"? I don't know why you think it should be better than the article on Girls. Liz Read! Talk! 16:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: We should always strive to be better, thereby inspiring the editors of the girl article to do likewise! (Wouldn't it be nice to get this article anywhere near that point?) It's not competition, but I like the idea of better mutual examples, improvements, and more harmonization between the articles. Of course we shouldn't actually have one article that's better than the other, but both articles are always works in progress, waiting for their next improvement. I'm sorry the rewrite discussion above ended so abruptly, and I don't like the way it ended. Dcs002 (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Former BoyhoodStudies.com Forum

message: There is a discussion to select image options for an RfC for the lead image at Woman. Discussion at Talk:Woman/sandbox. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-RfC [[Woman]] lead image discussion 

message: there some spelling error in the 4th paragraph Hanger 12345 (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: what spelling error? Volteer1 (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Please specify the errors. — A. Shohag (pingme or Talk) 13:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2021 

message: That section consumes more space than does Definition, etymology, and use. Nicmart (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Race 

message: Calling africans boy has it roots in slavery. What kind of insensitivity is this that you would include an African child picture as sample of a boy? Why not use a caucasian child? 2001:569:52B2:1300:3843:AD71:CF00:CD1E (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: And then someone can complain we used a white person as the first example? Calling a literal child a boy has nothing to do with slavery; it is the norm and very different from use of it towards adults. Crossroads -talk- 21:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page should not include an African child as a sample of boy. 

message: [[<img src="https://www.parentmap.com/images/article/7877/BOY_feature_credit_will_austin_848x1200.jpg" alt="Are Boys Being Left Behind? | ParentMap"/>|thumb|A boy smiling ]] Pre3set (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2023 

message: reverted my edit in which I changed "When a male human reaches adulthood, he is described as a man." to "When a male human reaches adulthood, he is usually described as a man." with the edit comment "Unsourced and as far as I know is generally considered not proper usage, but derogatory." 
While it is considered derogatory when used in a racial context, it is definitely not derogatory in all, or even most, contexts. (although derogatory usage is still usage) It is common in many song lyrics, for example: "But I won't stop until that boy is mine" in the song "Paparazzi" by Lady Gaga (which is clearly referring to an adult man, as presumably a paparazzi would be an adult). Or the song "Boy (I Need You)" by Mariah Carey, given that the song is referring to a male who is an object of attraction, and given that Carey was an adult at the time, it is presumable that it is referring to an adult male. Or, the song "Pink Houses" by John Mellencamp, in which someone is referred to as being a "young man" and, a few verses later, is referred to as a "boy" in the verse "Boy, you're gonna be president". Or, for an example of an adult man referring to himself as a "boy" in a song, see "Georgia Boy" by Al Green, which contains the verse "Just a country boy, yeah". It seems to be especially common in Country Music, for another example, "A Country Boy Can Survive" by Hank Williams Jr. contains numerous uses of the word to refer to adult men.
Additionally, it is common for many people to refer to their adult male partners as "boy" as a term of affection or endearment, similarly to how many people refer to their adult female partners as "girl" in the same way. This can be seen, for example, in the common term "boyfriend", which is absolutely commonly used to refer to adult men, and is not considered derogatory. In some gay communities, adult males commonly refer to themselves as "boy", as well. (for an example in an LGBT context, see the alternate spelling "boi", here.)
In addition to the common term "boyfriend", the term can be seen in many common terms and phrases used to refer to adult men. For example "an old boys' club", "country boy/city boy", "good old boy", "golden boy", "backroom boy", "boy toy", "wet boy", I could go on and on...
While there is likely some sort of scholarly source (perhaps the link above from Montclair State University could be a start) discussing this usage of the word, (and I will be searching as I have available time), it is really bordering on being such common usage of the word "boy" as to be self-evident and not necessarily needing a reference.  See: Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue.
I'm hoping other editors can give their input on this. Vontheri (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As I see it, there are two things at play here. First there is the question about the use of the word or expression boy as a reference to men. This could be a matter for a new sub-chapter to the chapter Specific uses, given the right sources are provided. The second thing is the actual sentence in the lead. One new word was added making the sentence like this: When a male human reaches adulthood, he is usually described as a man. Standing alone this sentence dosen't actually speak about whether men sometimes are reffered to as boys, it merely tells us, that the word man isn't always used when referring to a man. Other expressions are occasionally used in reference to man whitout using this exact word, such as for instance "mature male person" (aprox. 172,000 hits in a Google search), "adult male person" (aprox. 352,000 hits in a Google search) and several other expressions, so I see no problem in adding the word usually to the 'original' sentence "When a male human reaches adulthood, he is described as a man", but I have no specific preferences, so if other find that commonly or in general are more suitable I'll find that equally usefull in this specific situation. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 05:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your input. Given that it has been a few days, and no one has raised any objections, I will go ahead and re-add the word "usually" to the sentence.Vontheri (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As a latecomer to this specific issue, I just want to add my support. Usually and generally are appropriate modifiers in that sentence. Man is the expected term, but not the inevitable term. I teach at a middle school in the US, and there is a rather large change in progress concerning the terms of this discussion. Wherever possible (and within reason, of course), this article should avoid absolute language. Dcs002 (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of word "boy" to describe adult men 

message: I see the lead picture was recently changed, and I have no problem with that, but it leaves only one African of the >30 boys represented in all the photographs. As Africans and their recent descendants make up a very large portion of the human population, and as racial representation has been discussed here as an issue of concern, I think we should consider finding another way to show more African faces. Right now, 5 of the 8 photographs are of boys the US Census Bureau would consider white. (That includes the Italian, Armenian, and Hispanic boys.)
I think the ultimate answer is to expand the article to make room for more pictures. I can't point to a single picture and say that's the one that should be replaced. Dcs002 (talk) 06:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted that change. The picture they used is oddly framed and not in true color, so I don't see the benefit in it. And, it was undiscussed. Crossroads -talk- 19:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok thanks. That works for me, though I did not object to the change per se, only the under-representation of African boys that seemed evident as a result. I'm happy with this solution, though I still think this article should be expanded more, along the lines of what was discussed above. Dcs002 (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  African boys? 

message: The "Biology" section says:
Sex determination[edit]
Human sex is determined at fertilization when the genetic sex of the zygote has been initialized by a sperm cell containing either an X or Y chromosome. If this sperm cell contains an X chromosome, it will coincide with the X chromosome of the ovum and a girl will develop. A sperm cell carrying a Y chromosome results in an XY combination, and a boy will develop.''
Please make sure that this statement is NOT saying that "a boy is a boy regardless of whether he'll grow up to be a transgender woman". Georgia guy (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any way to make this statement more flexible?? 

message: I'm wondering why, in regards to the 'boy' and 'girl' articles, is the adjective 'young' used instead of 'juvenile', which is the adjective used for articles such as 'kitten' (where a kitten is described as a juvenile cat) and puppy (where a puppy is described as a juvenile dog)? It's just because the adjective 'young' seems vague in this context, it could mean anywhere from a very small child to a man in his early 20s. With the 'man' and 'woman' articles, 'adult ___ human' is concise because an adult is agreed to be someone who has reached the age of majority; usually 18. In law, a person who has not reached the age of majority is a juvenile or minor. So wouldn't either of those words be more concise and align with the 'man' and 'woman' articles? BreakfastSonata (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Juvenile' instead of 'young' 

message: Proposed extension of the article to include not only gender norms, but group norms:
Boys of different ages belong to groups that define their group norms. Boys evaluate other boys in regards to those group norms; conformity to group norms is more important than group membership (non-conforming group members are assessed lower than conforming strangers.
 Cautious (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group and gender norms