Talk:Female

Turner syndrome and XXX syndrome as intersex

Equivamp you claimed that Turner syndrome and XXX syndrome are considered intersex by the World Health Organization.

Do you have any sources for such a claim?

Also [this reliable] has stated Turner Syndrome and XXX syndrome aren’t intersex.

Also according to [Britannica] Intersex is Intersex, in biology, an organism having physical characteristics intermediate between a true male and a true female of its species. Individuals with Turner syndrome and XXX syndrome (or at least a majority of them) don’t have both sex characteristics.

I like I believe you are confused on the subject.CycoMa (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Also the source cited for that sentence didn’t say these were intersex. So calling them intersex is technically original research.CycoMa (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Might I direct you to the sources and discussion on the article Disorders of sex development? If that doesn't explain it for you, here is a source discussing the history of Turner syndrome and Klinefelter's being classified as intersex. As far back as the 60s, the classification of Turner syndrome as intersex was ubiquitous; the controversy over whether to regard it such much more recent.

As for sources of the WHO equating DSD and intersex, one may recall the controversy over just that wrt the ICD-11.

Per BRD, I ask that you self-revert to the WP:STATUSQUO text. --Equivamp - talk 01:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Equivamp also I recommend you read Wikipedia is not a reliable source.CycoMa (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I recommend you learn to read and comprehend the comments of the people you're trying to talk to, and also how to properly format and order talk page comments. --Equivamp -

talk 02:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

For the record I placed this comment right so I can respond to your statement about the DSD article. Also I understand what y’all are trying to say, I’m just trying to take me time and not rush anything.CycoMa (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

You claimed both XXX syndrome and Turner syndrome are considered intersex to WHO. And I don’t see any mentions of that source saying WHO thinks TS or XXX syndrome are intersex.CycoMa (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow, way to ignore my entire comment, dude. --Equivamp - talk 01:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Your own source stated that there is no consensus on what intersex is as well.CycoMa (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Equivamp you don’t have to join this discussion and don’t I wouldn’t touch the article until other editors are okay with this. But, didn’t you say Turner syndrome being intersex has some controversy? Didn’t WP:VOICE say not to treat Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.

So shouldn’t we fix up this article to mention there is controversy over classification of intersex? Or does it depend on how controversial the subject is?CycoMa (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: At this point I'm no longer certain what the contested text even says nor what you want it to say. But no, this article should not be used as a WP:COATRACK for discussion of the classification of certain conditions as intersex conditions. --Equivamp - talk 01:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Equivamp: my point was that I don’t think it’s appropriate for this article to mention that Turner or XXX syndrome are intersex.

One, as you have stated there is indeed controversy over them being classified as such. Unless Turner syndrome or XXX syndrome are widely accepted classified as intersex, calling them such is inappropriate here.

Second, those conditions don’t even fit the definition I presented at the top of this discussion. Don’t get me wrong the source you presented is indeed reliable but, it doesn’t say how many clinicians or scholars classify Turner syndrome are intersex.

Plus the article on male mentions XX males but doesn’t mention intersex.CycoMa (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

-sche can you please join in on the discussion so we can reach consensus.CycoMa (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I've added two sources which address the initial concern about the existing sources not calling Turner syndrome intersex. I've also now broken the sentence into two sentences to address the concern about SNYTH. (By doing so, I've also partially reverted the bold edit that dropped "intersex".) -sche (talk) 02:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay that fixes it up a bit. However, changing it to that makes the mention of intersex a little unrelated.

Also I’m not entirely sure the source you presented has knowledge on the topic from a medical (or at least with the more physical health) or a biological perspective.CycoMa (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

But, anyway I don’t feel y’all are truly understanding why arguments.CycoMa (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

women

why? 83.171.3.16 (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Definition of female

See Talk:Woman#Definition_of_a_woman for question about how to define woman and female. --MGA73 (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Should this article be disambiguated?

On the woman article talk page, there has been significant controversy regarding the lede and defining woman as "an adult female human". That lede links to this article which is entirely about biological sex, while the word "female" in that definition of woman often refers to gender and is meant to be gender-inclusive. It might be appropriate to disambiguate this article so that it links to Adult Female (Gender), Child Female (Gender) and Female. I'm wondering what the potential issues would be with this or if it would be WP:UNDUE. The void century (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, I see there's already a disambiguation, but I'm suggesting having the main article be a disambiguation and this article be renamed Female (Sex) The void century (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

It is indeed UNDUE because the vast majority of the sources on "female" are about the sex, usually not even being about humans but other living things. The gender meaning is still covered here, even in the lead. And "adult female" and "child female" are the same gender. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok so you're saying "adult female" and "child female" are the same gender, but Female is too heavily focused on sex in the sources to rationalize disambiguating, yet there is an obvious distinction between female article (biological sex) and Woman and Girl (female gender). If all that is true, then one or more of the following should probably happen:

1. woman and girl (as well as man and boy) should be combined into one Female (gender) article to make it clear that's the distinction wikipedia has decided to follow between Woman and Female.

2. Woman lede (and girl, man, boy) should be edited to include "Woman (also known as [adult] Female)".

3. Woman (and girl, man, boy) should be edited to unlink from female in its lead, but then have an additional line "For biological sex, see female" like many articles that have multiple meanings.

4. The lede of woman (and girl, man, boy) should edit their ledes to clarify that woman (the adult female gender) is a complex cultural concept that has multiple meanings and isn't simply an "adult female human".

Any of the above changes would clarify the intention of wikipedia in separating woman (adult female gender) and female (biology) The void century (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

The thing is, the sources on these topics do not separate "woman" as a term for gender and "female" as a term for biology. Even the sources on the Sex and gender distinction fail to do so consistently. I know this leaves us with an awkward Venn diagram of article content, but Wikipedia is supposed to follow rather than lead its sources.

The one of your proposals that I do find helpful is 3, which does a better job of articulating the relevance of Female to the Woman article than does the current (problematic) text. Newimpartial (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree about #3 and I think it would be a good compromise solution. The void century (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

That's not how we do inline links - we don't interrupt text with "see other article" phrases like that. Implying that "woman" has nothing to do with biological sex is biased text and a major change in meaning. And the "female" article we are on here mentions both meanings in its lead. This is simply not a problem, and discussion on the same issue should not be split between multiple pages. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking through the archives of talk:woman, female article being the problem is brought up often among editors who don't want to change the lede of woman. That seems like a rationale to split the discussion and decide on editing either the female article (which won't happen via the woman talk page) or the woman article.

On your point about this article mentioning the "gender" meaning, it feels like an afterthought, since it's the last line of the lead. That has multiple implications for readers, but a major one is it doesn't show up on page previews. If the gender line was moved immediately after the lede sentence so it showed up on previews, that would make the lede of woman less of a problem, but that's probably not going to happen because it would give the line WP:UNDUE in this article. Thus the issue stands that the lede of woman gives a false impression of what a woman is, and I agree that this discussion should be on woman.

My intention is not to imply that "woman" has nothing to do with biological sex. My intention is to create WP:BALANCE between biological sex and gender in the meaning of woman. I certainly respect your perspective as someone who has been involved with this discussion much longer than I have, but unlinking female seems to be the idea with the most support. That doesn't mean we need to add the line "For biological sex, see female." (though it sounds like unlinking has already been voted on in the past, so it's very possible that consensus hasn't changed).

I hear you that the lede of the woman page reflects the most common definition found in dictionaries. I agree that dictionaries are a reliable source for the common usage of a word, but they are not the only source and don't negate many decades of scholarship in fields like psychology, sociology, gender studies, etc. Nor do they negate social developments that have expanded the meaning of the word, such that major health organizations like WHO recognize the importance of both gender and biological sex.

In WP:UNDUE: "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Dictionaries, for the most part, represent common usage of a word, not necessarily the consensus among scholars and other reliable sources. The importance of gender is well established and accepted fact based on the sources cited in practically every article on wikipedia that cover gender-related topics, such as Gender, Sex and Gender Distinction, Gender Expression, Gender Identity. These articles are not WP:FRINGE theories, they are presented as fact, and so the question becomes, how much weight should Gender have in a lede of Woman? I think it should at least be made clear that the concept of Woman involves both biological sex and gender. The void century (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi again Tvc. Do note that except in a handful of circumstances, the Wikipedia community rarely prefers decisions for the sheer virtue of being a good compromise between opposing editorial viewpoints. Our goal is reflecting consensus and adhering to the Five Pillars (themselves the result of consensus). If we choose the middle ground every time, we would have a half-factual, half-pseudoscientific, half-racist, half-encyclopedia.

That said, several editors (including myself) have now spoken favorably of removing the bluelink to this article in the definition at Woman, as it fails to fully capture what is meant by female in adult female human (not just the sex which typically produces ova, but also the gender typically associated with it), and is therefore misleading. It may be worthwhile to revisit that as its own discussion at Talk:Woman.

The status-quo view is (as Crossroads said) that this article's scant reference to gender in humans makes this non-problematic. I do agree with him that a hatnote would be a much more disruptive way of putting it. I'm not fully satisfied by the current text there either, but I don't think it actively de-legitimizes transfeminism either. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 01:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing in policies or guidelines that says that a point in a lead has to show up in the preview, or that privileges the preview in any way. Regarding the rest, I won't comment further on that here to save space and because it largely concerns the other article. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Ledes are privileged in the rules, and previews generally display ledes, so my argument is an extension of that. And I don't think there's a rule saying that we shouldn't consider something important when there's a good argument for it. That's kind of the intention of WP:IAR. AFAIK, previews didn't exist when many of the rules were written. The void century (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal that this should be a disambiguation page. In current usage "female" and "woman" both may refer to the gender identity that is the opposite of male; see for example Merriam-Webster's definition of "female"[1]. There is no evidence that the "[someone] that produces ova" is even the most common definition of "female". When applied to humans the term typically primarily refers to those who are women or girls in a social sense. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Recent change to lead sentence

Newimpartial, please follow NOCON when making edits. The recent change to the article lead gives undue weight to the second of seven possible definitions listed by MW [2]. It is not clear that this particular definition is shared by other prominent dictionaries thus giving it this much weight in the opening sentence of the article is UNDUE. Please self revert and wait for consensus to make this change. Pinging @Mathglot and Amanda A. Brant: as involved editors. Springee (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not inclined to do that. Since this is part of a large issue, that has been discussed in the context of this article, Woman and Trans woman over a number years - and since the OWNers of this article are among the main stakeholders that have protected the current, unsatisfactory, status quo - I would rather shake things up in the spirit of WP:BRD at the present time. Newimpartial (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

If that is the case then I would suggest starting a talk thread. Per CONSENSUS policy this change should be reverted until consensus exists for the change. If you aren't willing to discuss the change to build consensus then the change should be reverted. Springee (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your having opened the Talk section for me. :) Newimpartial (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)With respect to the edit summaries given as justifications, the first, "Not sure why one of the most frequent used of "female" in English would he unDUE for the lead paragraph" doesn't appear correct. If the "gender of an individual that is the opposite gender identity of male" is the most common use why was it just added to one dictionary a few days back and then only as the second definition? With regards to the second restoration, "The usage of "female" for legal and social gender has been around for hundreds of years ", again it's not clear how that justifies relying on a change in definition that is just days old. Springee (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

From these comments, one might think you had not read the many discussions of the lead sentences (and wikilinks) of Woman and Trans woman, as well as this article, that have bedeviled these talk pages for several years. Newimpartial (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

If you think those are arguments that support these changes then make them here. You can't expect editors to go to other article talk pages to understand why a change was restored here. Springee (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I am hoping for other editors to step in with the crosswalks among those discussions, but if needed I will post some appropriate links and notices later. Newimpartial (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Poking my head in to say I'm mostly behind Newimpartial for largely the reasons mentioned by Amanda Brant. This page has been out of step with how other pages (and, for that matter, most English speakers) use the word "female" for a long time now, and it's high time someone fixed it. My only objection is that the resulting sentence is IMO quite awkward. Loki (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I gotta say, Newimpartial, your bold edit needs concensus. I'm with Springee. Masterhatch (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Many of the editors on the Talk:Woman page, including Mathglot, have said that it's not the job of the woman page to define female, and the lede of female should be fixed separately. I've personally been combing through many reliable sources (here's a small representation) in relation to this topic, and most of them use the term female in relation to gender. Some made a distinction between "female" being used for biology and "woman" being used for gender, but most did not. The vast majority of reliable sources (psychology, health, legal, academia) use the word female interchangeably with "female gender". The void century (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

A definition of "female" as only someone or something "that produces ova" is not neutral, not encyclopedic and directly contradicts what is clearly the most recognised, established use of "female" when applied to humans, namely someone who has the social identity of a female and is typically perceived as female by other people (it is very rare for anyone to have the opportunity to examine someone capability to "produce ova"). In addition, such a definition, that omits the more widespread social definition, is dangerously close to the talking points of the far-right anti-trans/anti-gender movement. The social definition of both woman and female has been around since time immemorial, its inclusion is non-controversial, and it is totally unacceptable for a general article on "female" to omit it. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, this article has recognized "female" in relation to gender in a tag-on paragraph at the end of the lead section, for quite some time. To again be fair, though, it is clear from discussion on Talk:Woman and Talk:Trans woman that this treatment is unsatisfactory to essentially all parties, albeit for a variety of reasons. The fact that neither editor who revered today's addition to the lead[3] [4] even recognized that the new addition specified a statement that is already elsewhere in the lead - and unmistakably improves the sourcing - inadvertently sheds light on problems with the status quo. Newimpartial (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

If that content is already elsewhere in the lead then why add it to the opening sentence? I didn't say it shouldn't be in the lead at all just not in the opening sentence. To keep in mind the ONUS is on those making the change. Springee (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

As long as this content is later in the lead, and not in the opening sentence, Wikipedia will be fair game for disruptive Talk page irruptions like this one, this one, this one and this one - and I am confining my examples to July of 2022! Newimpartial (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

How is that a policy based reason for this change? Also, it appear the admin boards are addressing that issue. Springee (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone specifically, but what about the ONUS on those who initially created/edited these pages? Early editors made a distinction that Woman/Girl and Man/Boy pages cover gender+biology while Female/Male pages are about biological sex. That has given a procedural advantage to editors who support the current framing, making it much harder to change these pages (they've essentially been grandfathered in to the system). In all these years, has anyone compiled reliable secondary sources to prove WP:DUE in the framing of these pages? Or do we just assume that dictionaries are the most reliable sources?

WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If you read reliable secondary sources beyond dictionaries, you'll see that the word female is commonly (almost universally) used in relation to gender or gender+sex, with the exception of certain fields like biology, and some feminist thinking that distinguishes between woman/girl and female. The gender usage has equal weight to the biology usage and should be included front and center. The void century (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Springee, much as I believe it to be the job of dramaboards to "fix" editor behaviour, when I am able to link four discussions in the last three weeks, started by different editors, all arising from this issue, that points to an underlying content problem. And intractable, underlying content problems are one of the applications for which the WP:IAR pillar is appropriate. Newimpartial (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

IAR has a limit, you have to be fixing a problem. Consensus here doesn't say you have fixed a problem. To that end it would help if you explained what the problem is and how this change would fix it. Not that any of that overrides concerns like WEIGHT and CONSENSUS. Springee (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you believe a concensus has been reached in this discussion, Springee? If so, what do you believe that consensus to be?

My purpose in contributing to this discussion is to arrive at consensus, not to pretend that one currently exists (which I believe it does not).

My "problem statement", if that's what you're asking for, is that the placement of the gender link at the end of the lead section encourages disruption in other articles, as editors ignore (innocently or willfully) the full content of this article when they interpret the hyperlink. I am not sure whether this compromise by Kolya would actually prevent further disruption, but it seems like a clear improvement over the status quo ante'. Newimpartial (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The lead section is supposed to be a summary of the article, but the first paragraph of the lead section and the first sentence within that paragraph are also supposed to succinctly summarise what the article is about. Thus, it's not sufficient to have something about gender much later in the article when it's probably the predominant usage with respect to humans. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Most of the article is not about the gender aspect. Also, why are we using that particular definition vs some other? Why not the more straightforward definition from the American Heritage Dictionary [5], "A woman or girl."? What about Random House (1997 ed), "of, relating to, or characteristic of a girl or woman" or the Oxford dictionary [6], "being a woman or a girl". If we are going to use a definition that ties this back to gender identity then why not use the obvious vs the convoluted one that doesn't seem consistent across dictionaries? Springee (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Because none of those definitions fully reflect the proportional usage of female in reliable sources-- WP:NPOV. I'd be open to using the previous phrasing: "In humans, the word female can also be used to refer to gender." , but I agree with the others that the gender meaning should be in the first paragraph instead of the end of the lead section. The void century (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Then why reference any dictionary definition? This seems rather selective. Also, I'm not sure that "opposite male" is a common language usage. Springee (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. This is not about common language usage, it's about common usage in reliable sources. The reason editors like myself have sought out dictionary definitions in the first place is because editors like yourself have claimed that the lede needs to draw from dictionaries. But dictionaries should be a non-issue. They are only one type of reliable source among a multitude. The void century (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

As I'm not a long time editor of this page please don't presume to suggest "editors like me" have asked for anything. Springee (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, that was bad wording. I didn't intend to single you out. The void century (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I feel like the Merriam-Webster definition is just more in depth which is fine because it's still concise. However Lexico has a good basic definition: "Relating to women or the female gender."[7] Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the Lexico definition is much better. It's straightforward but also covers both the human sex and gender identity aspects thus it is inclusive of a trans woman when saying "group of females" but also doesn't define by using the negative of the opposite. Would editors oppose that definition instead? Springee (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm ok with the Lexico definition instead of MW. The void century (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I suppose I could live with that, but I will point out (bitchily) that "opposite of male" has the advantage of avoiding the recursion problems editors keep bringing up on Woman and Trans woman. Saying "women or the female gender" avoids specifying whether "women" or "the female gender" are synonyms or two (at least partially) distinct meanings: an ambiguity that might be fine for a dictionary, but doesn’t seem ideal in an encyclopedia given the degree of hermeneutical hostility towards which this topic is prone. Newimpartial (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I might agree. The Merriam-Webster definition is more clear. What is the argument against it? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that's a good point. I'm ok with either Merriam-Webster or Lexico The void century (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Huh. I always thought this article was about female sex. But apparently, it is actually about the word "female."  Tewdar  20:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The proposal (in the previous section of this Talk page) to disambiguate "Female" didn't go anywhere, so we are where we are. As long as there is a set of editors intent to exclude "female as a gender" from the links used, e.g., in the first sentence of Woman, this issue will continue to produce contention. Newimpartial (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Perhaps we could revert to the last good version until the contention is settled?  Tewdar  20:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
      • WP:IAR, dammit. Let's fix this soccer. (I am done with the STONEWALLING.)Newimpartial (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
        • Why not make this article about Female (sex), and make new articles for the other uses?  Tewdar  20:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
          • I would support Female (sex) and Female (gender), and in fact that structure would reflect the thinking I have expressed on-wiki for several years. But that doesn't change the fact that such proposals keep being shot down and so week retain an entirely unsatisfactory status quo. Newimpartial (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
            • I'd support that.  Tewdar  20:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
              • I mean, Female (gender) could start out as an umbrella article for Women and Girls and could also have a historiography section rooted in Gender and Sex and gender distinction. This might not be daft. Newimpartial (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

                I'd support that The void century (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

        • I reverted it to the stable-ish version anyway. I don't think we can make changes like this without discussion, rules or no.  Tewdar  20:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
          • Tewdar, if you meant to do so procedurally, rather than out of conviction that the version you reinstated is better, I would ask you to reconsider. The discussion is taking place now, and the live version of the article was evolving. If this becomes an opportunity for this article's OWNers to STONEWALL until chances are made, we will just be stuck for another year or two. After all the complaining I've heard for you about the status quo of other articles, I'm surprised to see you reinstating it here. Newimpartial (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
            • You (plural) are trying to change an article about female sex into an article about the word 'female'. If that becomes the consensus then so be it, but I suspect an RfC will be necessary. You didn't see me trying to change the accursed Cultural Marxism article without discussion, did you?  Tewdar  20:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
              • You want me to bring the accursed diffs? Because I can do that. I reverted some of them, remember?
              • Anyway, I am not trying to change this article into an article about a word - it was already (partly) that (or at least, an article that extended beyond biology) before I was involved. And moving a tiny bit of content from this article to Female (gender) could probably be done without an RfC; even a disambiguation topnote might not require that much formality. Newimpartial (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
                • I created the page Female (gender). Please feel free to edit and improve. I'm exhausted from arguing about this for over a week, so I'm probably going to step away for a few days. The void century (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
                  • Sounds good.  Tewdar  22:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
                • Not really sure what exactly you're on about, or why it's relevant, but feel free to post those diffs.  Tewdar  22:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
                  • Two of your bold edits to the lede of another article, prior to discussion, were this and this. Newimpartial (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Gosh. What a long time ago. Haven't I matured as an editor since then.  Tewdar  22:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Plus, that's not an example of me trying to change what the entire article is about.  Tewdar  22:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Many other editors do not agree that any recent edit to Female was trying to change what the entire article is about.

And I have no comment on editorial maturity today. Ask again tomorrow. :p Newimpartial (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Don't look at this talk page 😂  Tewdar  22:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• • • • • • There have been many years of discussion on this topic on Talk:Woman, where many editors have said that female page should be fixed to reflect the gender meaning. This is not coming out of nowhere. Creating Female (Gender) is an option but I feel like that's opening a whole new can of worms. The void century (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• Tewdar, what precisely are you opposing in this version? The article is already about both female sex and gender...which is what female is about.... Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The article is already about both female sex and gender - There is (or was) a token reference to gender, which I saw as more of a disambiguator, rather that an integral part of this article's content.  Tewdar  22:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
    • It was in the lead. But that doesn't clarify why you oppose more than a "token reference" to gender? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
      • I oppose more than a token reference in this article because I was under the impression that this article was about the female sex. But not to worry, there's a brand new Female (gender) article that you can all Butlerize all you want.  Tewdar  22:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
        • Oh. Wait. No there isn't?  Tewdar  23:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
          • It was turned into a redirect by @CollectiveSolidarity:, but the base version that The void century created is still in the edit history. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
            • Sideswipe9th, I tried to covert it into a redirect, because it looked substantially similar to Female gender. Is there a discussion going on about this? If so, I want nothing to do in this sanctions-heavy area. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
          • Short answer, yes. There seems to be a rough consensus to start Female (gender). Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
            • • Female gender isn't an article though. Newimpartial (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC
        • That doesn't really work because Woman is defined as adult female human, where female means sex or gender, so female should redirect to an article which means both. The newer version really does not go into much depth about gender, so I don't understand your objection. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
          • We can work on the text of Woman once we have a proper article at Female (gender). The version you've seen is essentially a stub, but I have no doubt we'll be able to do quite a bit better than the current gender content at Female. Preserving the ambiguity of the first sentence of Woman should not be a goal in itself, if we can arrive at content that is not misleading (or ASTONISHing). Newimpartial (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Alright then! I'll leave you guys to deal with the impending bloodbath. Apparently I was too late to avoid this junk [8], but I kindly advise you all to be calm and civil. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)