Talk:Woman

Bad sources

As I mentioned above, the first sentence cites two sources, both of which are medical dictionaries. One of these sources is nearly two decades old and is considered fairly worthless even in a medical context, as up-to-date sources are crucial in the field of medicine. However, the broader issue here is that the definition of "woman" is not purely a medical matter; it encompasses social, legal and cultural dimensions that are equally important. The sources are random, of low quality, and overly narrow in scope, failing to provide a comprehensive or reliable basis for such a complex and multidimensional concept. In addition, the sources both predate the adoption (from 2018) of this until then obscure definition as an anti-trans catchphrase and its current exclusionary meaning in right-wing discourse, further illustrating why two-decades-old medical dictionaries are not good sources. --Tataral (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster, which cannot be accused of being either inappropriately medical or out of date, gives "an adult female person" as its first definition for woman. The website for the Collins English Dictionary says "an adult female human being".

A Dictionary of Gender Studies from Oxford University Press begins its definition of woman this way: "Term for an adult female human being. Also used to shame men. Regarded by radical feminists such as Monique Wittig as a debased category, the meaning of which is determined within heterosexual sociocultural structures."

A note in the sidebar for their website says that Oxford Dictionaries gives this as the primary definition: "an adult female human being".

I looked through multiple sources, mostly via Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, and I found zero that (a) provided a definition and (b) did not start that definition with something very similar to "adult female human". My impression is that, overall, dictionaries have prioritized simpler, more basic concept over the more technical or specialized definitions that are preferred in academia.

If it's any comfort, I find that dictionary definitions are often lacking for technical or specialized subjects. M-W, for example, gives a definition of cancer that prioritizes the zodiac constellations over the medical concept, and on the medical side, gives a definition that excludes most leukemias, as well as having other faults. But the definition is probably adequate for ordinary purposes, just like the definition that they give for woman is probably an adequate starting point.

More philosophically, saying that womanhood ought to be defined according to {gametes produced|gender identity|gender expression|anatomical sex|chromosomal sex|statutory definition in a given country|fill in the blank} is not "a fact"; it's a viewpoint, as in "pushing to have your preferred viewpoint prioritized over the others is what we call WP:POV pushing on wiki". Any of those viewpoints might be a valid viewpoint, but none of them are Wikipedia:The Truth. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Is it not the case that ANY definition of woman would be a viewpoint, by that logic? A Socialist Trans Girl 03:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

If you take that logic to a reasonably extreme point (and many linguists do), then all definitions for all words, and any application of any word to a specific set of facts, is a viewpoint. Some of those viewpoints are sufficiently universal that there is no value in differentiating "a viewpoint" from "an objective fact" (e.g., words like "five" and "point mutation"), but in other cases, they can, and sometimes should, all be validly treated as a viewpoint. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Oki so, are you also saying that the current definition is equally a viewpoint & that pushing it over others is also POV pushing? Sorry if I'm misinterpreting A Socialist Trans Girl 23:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I think that is a logical position to hold. Of course, just because something is a viewpoint doesn't mean that it's not the right thing for Wikipedia to present as the primary POV. It is, after all, equally "just" a viewpoint that say that climate change is anthropogenic, or that it's better to be educated than to be ignorant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Oki. A Socialist Trans Girl 01:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Self-contradictory lead

The lede defines women based on sex characteristics, such as the capacity to give birth and anatomy to facilitate childbirth and breastfeeding, then mentions that women may be assigned male at birth. I think that sex characteristics should be removed from the lead to avoid self-contradiction. Kaotao (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. 'Typically of the female sex' and 'some assigned male at birth' do not contradict each other, as neither claims exclusivity. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

It also says “fertile women are capable of pregnancy and giving birth”. Are trans women that produce sperm capable of pregnancy? Can they give birth? Are they not fertile? Jorgebox4 (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I think you are misreading that. Masterhatch (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@Masterhatch He quoted it verbatim. Kaotao (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say he misquoted it. I said he misread it. Big difference. Masterhatch (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@Masterhatch I think his is a valid reading, per wikt:fertile. Kaotao (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I think 'fertile women are capable of pregnancy and giving birth' is quite clear to mean "being pregnant" and not (and here's the misreading) of "making someone pregnant". Anyways, that's my two cents. Masterhatch (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@Masterhatch He would appear to be reading the passage in the former way; he believes that the passage, by claiming that all fertile women can become pregnant, contradicts the fact that there are fertile trans women. Kaotao (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Trans women make up a miniscule percent of the population. We gotta be careful not to give too much undue weight to such a small group of people, especially in the lead. The average joe will take that sentence at face value -- as they should. Masterhatch (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@Masterhatch ...Which would make the lead objectively self-contradictory, since it's expressed in absolute terms, rather than proportionately as is the point made in my OP. Kaotao (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that this is a problem. Readers are not stupid, and they will be able to figure it out.

Also, Uterus transplantation is a new thing, so some trans women may even be able to become pregnant and give birth. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

That doesn’t change the fact that some women can impregnate now, not in the hypothetical future. Jorgebox4 (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

The ability to become pregnant is not defined according to the person's inability to do something else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing The issue is not whether trans women can give birth, it's whether the term "fertile woman" can apply to people incapable of birth; though what you brought up would invalidate my recent edit if it were to prove fruitful (women with functioning uteruses instead of fertile women, maybe?). Still, I think that as a general of thumb, trying to avoid deliberately writing articles in illogical ways is a good idea, even if readers will understand that we're saying something we're not. Kaotao (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Fertile women are sometimes unable to give birth; for example, a woman with certain uterine defects may use a surrogate but still be considered fertile in the sense of being able to produce viable eggs. Similarly, many infertile women are able to give birth through IVF or donor eggs. It is not "illogical" to say that they're fertile, as that term encompasses more than one technical meaning, and the relevant meaning is clear to ordinary, non-rules-lawyering, non-POV-pushing people when they read the whole sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Thank you for using your superior intelligence and wisdom to point out more ways that asserting "fertile women can give birth" as a rule was inaccurate. I appreciate your agreement with our point. Kaotao (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it is possible to choose a definition that does not make sense in the context of this sentence. Do you agree that it is possible to choose a definition that does make logical sense in the context of this sentence? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Alright, so first you accuse me of bad faith with hyphenated-buzzword-gotchas, then you waste my time by making a dramatic filler comment instead of simply stating your point in what I can only assume is some sort of Redditism... this isn't going anywhere. See you around. Kaotao (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I believe you are absolutely acting in good faith. Specifically, using the definition from the first sentence of WP:AGF – "Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful" – I believe that you are trying to help Wikipedia by advocating for a viewpoint that you believe is under-represented in the lead of this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Fertile means being able to produce offspring, either by becoming pregnant or by making someone pregnant. Jorgebox4 (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

No, they're virile. To put it bluntly, fertile applies to wombs, virile applies to dicks. Snokalok (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@Snokalok wikt gives "capable of reproducing", which could apply to both, I think? Kaotao (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough then Snokalok (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Crossroads. The lede says "Typically" before listing the sex characteristics, so is clear that, regardless of how you define woman, not all women have every single one of those characteristics. It's not generally disputed that women who have genetic infertility or have had a mastectomy are still women.

No matter how you define women and trans women, the latter are at most only a tiny subset of the former. It is thus important to mention the sex characteristics that nearly all women have. Moreover, these characteristics are still relevant to trans women and why they want to change their appearance. Anywikiuser (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Lead is very self-contradictory, especially this part: "Some women are transgender, meaning they were assigned male at birth". Thedayandthetime (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

There are multiple valid definitions of some words, including the word woman. Some people are women according to one or more definitions that focus on biology, and others are women according to the definition that focuses on gender identity, and others are women according to the definition that focuses on gender expression. Acknowledging the variation is not "self-contradictory". There is no statement in the lead that says anything like "The only valid definition of the word woman in the whole world is that the person was assigned female at birth, so trans women can't be women". Because there is no such statement, there is no actual self-contradiction. An actual self-contradiction would require a sentence that says "All women are assigned female at birth" followed by "Some women are not assigned female at birth". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

The article never mentions a woman is "assigned female at birth" except for that very specific paragraph mentioning trans women. It is contradictory. Thedayandthetime (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Self-contradictory looks like:

• All women are assigned female at birth.
• Some women are assigned male at birth.

Self-contradictory does not look like:

• Typically, women are of the female sex.
• Some women are assigned male at birth.

If you believe that the lead is self-contradictory, please quote the two sentences that supposedly contradict each other. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Maybe not contradictory, but possibly confusing, since different terminology is used between the last two sentences. Kaotao (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I write this comment under the assumption that "the last two sentences" means the last two bullet points in my comment above, and not the last two sentences in the lead of the article (which are about ancient mythology).

It's not really different terminology. Consider reading it this way:

• Typically, some of the people we call women are of the female sex.
• Some of the people we call women are assigned male at birth.

Nobody checks a birth certificate before saying something like "I think that woman over there needs help", so even the most virulent anti-trans bigot is going to call some AMAB people "women" on occasion. Even if they did, birth certificates are occasionally just wrong on that point due to clerical errors.[1] WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing "of the X sex" and "assigned Y at birth" are different regardless of what you put before and after. Something less confusing would be "of the X sex" then "of the Y sex". I don't see how this could be an issue when we're already claiming that only some women are of the female sex, and I feel it would be recognizable for more readers, but if you prefer, "assigned [X|Y] at birth" would work as well, though it'd be less accurate because as you pointed out, assignment at birth can be wrong. I have no idea what point you were trying to make in your last paragraph; neither of us even mentioned appearance, and I didn't pop into this subdiscussion over the sex/gender distinction, just those two sentences. Kaotao (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that is very confusing, unless it's the first time you've encountered the concept of sex being assigned at birth. Transitioning to the sex assignment concept helps lead into intersex women.

(The point of the last paragraph is that relying strictly on status "assigned at birth" is not how people actually function in the real world, so trans women really are women/are treated like women, at least to the extent that they have passing privilege.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing I think a lot of people wouldn't know the precise definition of "assigned at birth", including many who've heard the term before, and a sizable number who've never heard it at all, such as those outside the west. It would be easier to intuit if "assigned at birth" was exclusively used, but when different terminology for the same concept is used alongside it, it can be confusing. Exclusively using the term sex would be more recognizable and thus preferable, but I assume more controversial, even though it means the same thing as assignment; hence my floating the idea of using "assignment" in both cases.

Again, this discussion isn't over whether trans women are women, or whether they pass as women, or whether or not people ask random women about their "assignment", but rather over how to best represent the concepts of "cisgender" and "transgender" in the lead such that as few readers as possible need to conduct additional research to be absolutely sure what we mean. Kaotao (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and people come here to read up on things they don't understand, or wish to understand better. Nothing could be more normal or expected, than to run into terms they don't know. You seem to be selecting one term for critical attention, but how many of the following words I picked out from the lead can you define without following the link: SRY gene, sex differentiation, fallopian tubes, Aphrodite. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using accurate terminology in this article, and no reason to dumb it down. There is a Wikimedia sister project called Simple Wikipedia where simpler language is the goal, and you might enjoy contributing to the homologous article there: simple:Woman, which does not use the term sex assignment at birth. Mathglot (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot There is no synonym of any of your examples in the lead. An example of the issue I'm bringing up would be if an article used "Aphrodite" and "Venus" in different paragraphs to refer to the same goddess, without any clarification whatsoever. You can see how this would be unnecessarily confusing. Kaotao (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Then I guess I don't understand the issue you are concerned with. Can you formulate your issue concretely as "I want to change A to B" ? Mathglot (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot Either my last edit or, preferably, the one before. I've already explained why. There's no reason to use different terminology for the same concept. Sex assignment is not an essential concept for the spot it was invoked in, or for the lead in general, but if you prefer, it can be used in both cases in place of sex alone. Kaotao (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I still did not see what you are calling the same concept, and I suppose your recent edit at the article (here, reverted) was something to do with what you are talking about. You still haven't stated in a way I can clearly understand the two different phrases in the article that you find synonymous and therefore confusing to use instead of one phrase, but if it's the terms sex and gender, that represents a clear misunderstanding of a core conceptual difference underlying this article. Perhaps I am wrong and your recent change was not about that, but something else, and if so then I still don't follow you (sorry), but you can nevertheless attempt to reach consensus for it here by getting other editors on board for what you are going for.

I can't help you reach that consensus, because afaict, there appears to be no good reason to make the change you wish to make. If the light bulb comes on, I'll rejoin the conversation, but in the meantime, I think it's time for me to step back and let others who understand your view better interact with you. I don't doubt your good faith in trying to improve the article, your presence here makes that clear, but please do not make further changes to the article and especially not to the lead that have not had consensus here first. Please also note the links in the header at the top of the page about perennial discussions; perhaps they will shed some light. Best, Mathglot (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot Not only did you not read this discussion, but you didn't even read the edits you were reverting? To clarify, no, the terms I changed were not sex and gender. Kaotao (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe that Kaotao is looking for Parallelism (grammar): Either we say "Typically women are female sex" + "Some women are male sex" or "Typically women are assigned female" + "Some women are assigned male", but not "Typically female sex" + "Some assigned male". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems a reasonable conjecture of what Kaotao means, and if accurate, may help others reach a consensus. As much as I appreciate the interpretation, I still don't know if that is what they actually meant (I guess we are about to find out) and discussing via proxy would be too exhausting and error-prone, so it's best if I adhere to my previous path of just lurking and letting others take the lead. Good luck. Mathglot (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC) P.S. I would just add for the benefit of all that we read the contentious topic notification among the headers at the top of the page. Mathglot (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Article lead should start by stating: "A woman is an adult human who was assigned female at birth" so it doesn't contradict itself. Thedayandthetime (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

So you'd like Wikipedia to say that intersex women aren't actually women? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

That wouldn't be implied, as a minority of those with intersex characteristics are of indeterminate sex at birth. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 08:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I think that if you state that women are assigned female at birth, then that excludes people who are assigned intersex at birth. I think it would go rather beyond "implied", in fact. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. When someone is born with an intersex condition, they are generally assigned as either male or female, with atypical traits. We don't simply assign them 'intersex', as their actual sex is rarely unascertainable. A male with Klinefelter syndrome is assigned male. A female with vaginal atresia is assigned female. A male with anorchia is assigned male. A female with Turner syndrome is assigned female. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Some of those assignments don't happen "at birth", but months or years later. Others, such as 5α-Reductase 2 deficiency, are wrongly assigned as female at birth.

And in rare cases, the assignment actually is "I" for intersex. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Do remember the Wikipedia isn't truth - it's all about what wikipedia consider 'reliable sources' and getting some consensus on what are RS and which can be used.

There will be no traction here for the definition of a Woman not including 'Trans' people who identify as women. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The lead in Man article is worded different when it mentions trans men. That would be a better way to have it for Woman. Thedayandthetime (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I just noticed there's a lot of bias in how Woman is worded in general, which does not happen with Man. Thedayandthetime (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Please don't make unfounded or unexplained accusations of bias. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Unfounded? Please read the new topics on this very talk page if you need further explanation. Thedayandthetime (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Usually, I find that when relative newcomers make accusations of "bias" on a topic being discussed by politics, what they mean is "doesn't represent my viewpoint sufficiently".

To give an unrelated example, at the articles concerning the Gaza war, we have newcomers saying "This is so biased in favor of the Israelis!" followed by other newcomers saying "This is so biased in favor of Hamas!"

So I'd like to suggest that you step back and ask yourself not whether it is biased-compared-to-your-view but whether what you see here is what you might expect to see in a European or American university class. Maybe imagine a sociology or anthropology class, and they're going to talk about the role of women in societies, and the prof says "So to talk about this sensibly, we need to understand what a woman is..." and gives a ten-minute lecture. Does this article approximately line up with what you imagine that professor might say? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Clause not supported by provided source

−

Some women are transgender, meaning they were assigned male at birth

+

Some people are transgender women, meaning they were assigned male at birth

The original text is not supported by the source. However, the new wording is supported by APA's complementary source.

per your suggestion, @Mathglot Quiddy (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Paxperscientiam (known as Quiddy), this is a concrete suggestion that will make it easier for others to respond to you. (For the record, my suggestion (diff) concerns how to style a proposal using {{textdiff}}.) Mathglot (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it should be worded like this: "Some people are transgender women, meaning they were assigned male at birth". Thedayandthetime (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Paxperscientiam (AKA Quiddy) First, the disagreement is about phrasing, not about any difference in factual content: Wikipedia policy does not require 1:1 copying of the source, in fact it discourages it. And regardless the proposed articles only have a difference in syntax and readability, not semantics.

But regarding your proposed version: it has a few issues.

1. The sentence seems less relevant, as it does not establish it's connection to the subject of the article, whereas the current version does.
2. It doesn't make sense factually, since not all AMAB people are transgender; the current version is referring to some women who are transgender as meaning that for that subset of women being transgender, it means they were AMAB.

From adapting the sentence while keeping the structure the same, I think the phrasing 'Some women are transgender women, meaning they are women who were assigned male at birth' is fine, since it fixes both of those issues. However, I do have an issue with that; it sounds very repetetive.

I do however, have a suggestion which uses a different structure for the initial clause, but solves both the issues while reading well: 'Trans women are women who were assigned male at birth.' This sentence has several benefits:

1. It establishes its relationship to the article topic: "are women" establishes the relevance to the article, so it doesn't read like a random fact unrelated to the article.
2. It doesn't imply that all AMAB people are trans women.
3. It mirrors the article for trans woman.
4. It avoids any MOS:EGG issue.

Would you support this proposal? And if not, what issues with the phrasing do you believe there are? A Socialist Trans Girl 00:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't support this proposal. What do you mean it does not establish its connection to the subject of the article? The current version does not establish its connection to the subject of the article since it contradicts itself and is talking about trans women instead of women.

What's AMAB people and what does that have to do with women?

"Some people are transgender women, meaning they were assigned male at birth" is better because:

1. It establishes its relationship to the article topic: "are transgender women" establishes the relevance to the article.

2. It's more clear for readers, including persons who have different beliefs, including gender-critical ones

3. The new wording is supported by APA's complementary source. Thedayandthetime (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I doubt that editors who favor a "pro-trans" (or whatever we call the opposite of gender critical) viewpoint will agree to using the word people in that sentence. I would expect that the editors who have been trying to get the old Stonewall slogan "trans women are women" into the lead of this article to oppose the use of any noun that leaves any room for doubt about whether trans women are actually women (e.g., people or humans).

Therefore, I believe that if we're going to have any change, we will need to avoid all such nouns. For example, "Trans women were assigned male at birth but have a feminine gender identity". (Or we could just leave it alone, which is my first choice.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Thedayandthetime

1. By 'it doesn't establish its connection to the article' i mean it doesn't do that since it just says 'some people' instead of 'some women' (as the article is about women)

2. The current version does stablish the connection to the article? It begins with 'some women'

3. It doesn't contradict itself. Read the discussion about the supposed contradiction that you can see in the 'round in circles' template; (also don't respond with an argument about why it is a contradiction, it's already been discussed.'

4. AMAB is an acronym for 'Assigned male at birth'. It's relation to women is that some women are AMAB.

5. that doesn't establish the relationship to the article. this article is about women, not people.

6. No it's not more clear to those people, it's only more agreeable. for which that doesn't matter. Omission of 'some women' in favour of "some people" is merely pointless posturing primarily pertaining to pleasing people who hold reactionary views toward gender. With regard to actual readability and clarity, 'some women' is far more clear and readable because it establishes why the sentence is in the article; this article is not the article for 'people', it's the article for 'women'.

7. Quote where in the APA source it supports the definition please. A Socialist Trans Girl 05:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

"AMAB is an acronym for 'Assigned male at birth'. It's relation to women is that some women are AMAB." Well, no. It doesn't have a relation to women. You could say that literally about everything. "Some women are Christians", "Some women like chocolate" yet we're not gonna include that in Woman. It does have a relation to males though. The APA source is linked above. I disagree that is "only more agreeable". Actually, the article is currently more agreegable to people who don't hold gender-critical views, it's not clear in general. Thedayandthetime (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@A Socialist Trans Girl, on the contrary, it's very much about a difference in factual content: if this article is going to claim that transwomen are women "above the fold", then it ought to come with a supporting source. The source, as it stands, does not claim that transwomen are a subset of women (or, that transmen are a subset of men).

I believe @CaptainEek erred in [2] where they reverted an edit that better reflected the claims of the source. It's also not clear what body they were referring to when they cited a "consensus".

"Would you support this proposal? And if not, what issues with the phrasing do you believe there are?"

I do not support the proposal, because I believe it contradicts the conventional definition of "woman" (that which is used in the very first sentence of this article).

If definitions pertaining to trans* are to be included, it ought to include multiple perspectives like that provided by Transmedicalism.

@Mathglot, do you have an opinion of the revert of your edit? Quiddy|Paxperscientiam (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

"then it ought to come with a supporting source".

That is for sure. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@Paxperscientiam Sorry I don't get what you mean by 'above the fold'.

Do you believe the same applies to the article for trans woman? With regards to it needing a source.

No it does not contradict the definition. Read the footnote of the definition. It says "Female may refer to sex or gender." And there's nothing about what qualifies a trans woman in this article, that's for the trans woman article. It's not stated whether 'one's predominate sex hormone being estrogen' or 'gender expression' or 'gender identity' is what qualifies someone as a trans woman, so that's not revelevant to this discussion. A Socialist Trans Girl 05:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Surprise links, and matching man, in That Part of the Lead

With apologies for re-opening this issue; I fell off the wagon when we discussed it last because of a certain Arb case I was drafting, and am a bit surprised at how things turned out. Feel free to slap me if I'm rocking the boat, and I'll let things be.

I recently made this change (Trans women have a gender identity that...) (which I then undid), which was an almost return to a previous version, albeit preserving the current sources. I'm not married to that version, but I initially did that for two reasons I think we need to address. For one, the current wording has a surprise link: when you click transgender, it sends you to trans woman, not transgender. I don't think changing the link to transgender fixes the issue, as the more sensible link is still to trans woman. Second, this article keeps diverging from man. Now, I'm happy for us to instead change man to match this article, but I do feel like we keep leaving man out of the loop here. To the extent that we can keep the articles parallel, it increases the appearance of professionalism and rigor, and is more useful to the reader.

To boil down my concern: the current version (Some women are transgender...) is not substantively much different from the prior version. But, the current version has a surprise link, so I'm hard-pressed to call it an improvement. The current version seems to have been a compromise...but I'm suggesting that the compromise version is in fact worse than either the proposed change (a trans woman is a woman who...) or the prior version (Trans women have a gender identity that...). Frankly, I prefer the a trans woman is a woman who... approach, but I understand that didn't quite pull in consensus. Regardless, I think we either need to change it further, or roughly go back to the way things were (vis a vis this change). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, I prefer that approach, too, but to the extent you believe it didn't quite pull in consensus, my view is that it is due in part to the misunderstanding of the word redundant, which has already been discussed in this exact context before. We forget discussions that have already been had and then have them again, hence the {{Round in circles}} template among the headers above, to which "A trans woman is a woman" is not redundant should probably be added. Attempting to use alternative wording or elegant variation in a misguided attempt to avoid a "redundancy" that isn't there is an unforced error which leads to a less accuracy and clarity in the article. Mathglot (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot I added it to the Round in circles template :) A Socialist Trans Girl 00:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

For me, the issue of starting the sentence with a trans woman is a woman who... isn't redundancy, but that it's contentious. Most of this article gets around the problem by being ambiguous as to whether it's using sex-based and gender-based definitions, but A trans woman is a woman who... unambiguously uses a gender-based one.

Then there's the problem with the definition hinging on what you "identify" as. Trans women do a lot more than merely identifying as women, even without a medical transition. The definitions used in the Endocrine Society's guidelines put it better: trans women/men "identify and live as" women/men. Moreover, some trans women like Caitlyn Jenner and Debbie Hayton do not identify as a women.

An improved wording I suggest is Trans women are assigned male at birth but identify or live as women. Intersex women have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology. That also has the advantage of being more concise. Though I personally find the "assigned" wording bizarre, since we don't say that a baby's weight is "assigned". UK NHS guidelines suggest "registered at birth" in communications aimed at the general public. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Liking that. Await the storm - but it looks pretty spot on. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

"Registered at birth" should be used in the article. Current wording is confusing. Thedayandthetime (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've never heard the registered at birth language before. That seems to be a British English-ism; the assigned language is the standard in American English. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's a Britishism. The birth certificate process is rather different there from the US system; instead of the hospital or midwife filling out the birth certificate, the new parents are supposed to go to a government office and fill out the paperwork themselves. They call that "registering" the birth, so it's the sex (and name, and parents, and whatever else goes on the form) "registered" at birth. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Anywikiuser First, I have a question: How exactly is the phrasing of 'Trans women are women who...' contentious? And why does it matter that it's contentious?

That phrasing isn't 'unambiguously' a gender based one. It's still ambiguous. The main utility serving definition of sex is the hormone washes one recieves; whether they're estrogen based or testosterone based; and since many trans women undergo HRT, it's therefore not 'unambiguously a gender based one'.

The definition 'Trans women are women who...' doesn't mention identification.

The view of an anti-trans activist holds no weight in this consideration.

And considering the context of the NHS right now, I don't hold them to be a reliable source on the topic. Also the wording of 'assigned' is the one overwhelmingly used in academic literature (over 10:1 compared to 'registered at birth') so we should use that.

Regarding your proposed wording, I really don't like that wording. There's many issues with it:

1. It doesn't establish the connection to the article effectively, whereas 'Trans women are women who...' does. Because of this it is closer to reading like a random fact listed, rather than elaborating upon the article's subject. It just reads really weirdly.
2. The 'but' communicates that its a contradiction; which it isn't.
3. The 'identify/live as women' just comes off as trying to skirt around 'are women'. For which I see no point in doing.
4. What it means to 'live as a woman' is very unclear and confusing for a definition where we can just go 'are women'.

A Socialist Trans Girl 01:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with this. It shouldn't be contentious for the wiki page to simply say that transgender women are women. Saying "identify and live as" puts an undue amount of skepticism and false balance into the summary text. Snokalok (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

If we lived in an ideal world, it wouldn't be contentious. But we don't, and so it is. It won't be contentious for the Wikipedia article to say that until it's not contentious for people in the real world to say that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that having the word transgender link to Trans woman is an WP:EASTEREGG. It is a relevant and unsurprising link. An example of an actually "astonishing" link would be a link to something like Feminizing surgery. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I personally think 'Trans women are women who were assigned male at birth.' is by far the best proposal. It has several advantages compared to other proposals:

1. It establishes its relationship to the article topic: "are women" establishes the relevance to the article, so it doesn't read like a random fact unrelated to the article.
2. It doesn't imply that all AMAB people are trans women.
3. It mirrors the article for trans woman.
4. It avoids any MOS:EGG issue.

A Socialist Trans Girl 00:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. To 'live as a woman' is very clear and definitely not confusing for a definition. To just go with 'are women' is not clear and is actually confusing, since the article doesn't start by saying women are humans asigned female at birth. Thedayandthetime (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Responding solely to this statement in the OP (and in the section title):

Second, this article keeps diverging from man.

You mean, kind of the way women are divergent ("as in: differing") from men? Seems fine to me. Mathglot (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Definition includes trans women and trans men

The current definition states that a woman is an adult female human, with a note stating that “female” can mean either sex or gender. When meaning female gender identity, it includes cis women and trans women. When meaning of the female sex, it includes cis women and trans men. If the aim of the article is to reserve the word woman for cis women and trans women, excluding trans men, it should be noted that the word “female” in the definition can only refer to gender identity; female sex would only be the most common sex found in women, playing no role in the definition. The new wording would be: “A woman is an adult human with a female gender identity, typically of the female sex”. Jorgebox4 (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

You may as well say a woman is an adult human who identifies as a female. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

You are using “female” as a noun and a synonym for woman. Saying that a woman is someone who identifies as a woman is kind of circular. Jorgebox4 (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. But that is what the general thrust of this discussion - and many others - is really leading to. You say "A woman is an adult human with a female gender identity",... Ok. Who decides what their 'identity' is. They do. So That means that "a woman is an adult human who identifies as a female".

Having stripped away all the other possible criteria that is all you are left with. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)