This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Social construction of gender article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The contents of the Gender performativity page were merged into Social construction of gender on 14 July 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article was nominated for merging with Victim feminism on 15 February 2018. The result of the discussion was not merged. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
There is no original research in this article. Could you please clarify what you mean by "original research?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecdjes ( talk • contribs) 04:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC) [ sic
There is only original research in this article - it was posted by graduate students in social psychology and we only posted "original research" ( Ecdjes ( talk) 04:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)).
You say there is no original research and also there is only original research. Which is it? Iguessiknowsomestuff ( talk) 02:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Without any statement on the content of the article's actual veracity, I think this article leans heavily towards presenting fairly contentious opinions as facts. That is not to say they are not true, rather that there is a substantial enough body that disputes these statements that they should not be presented without consideration of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.104.180 ( talk) 03:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Well put-- and in the four years since these complaints, nobody has bothered to add any of the critiques of the theory. I'm sorry, but at the moment this is virtually a press release for a theory. Profhum ( talk) 18:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, 10 years later the NPOV issue has only become larger. This is aggravated by the many editors who edit here as part of a class assignment. They do not dare disagree with the views held as doctrine on many campuses. How many even realize that there are alternative views? Somebody who is knowledgeable about serious literature on this subject, please create a paragraph on alternative views. The present state of this article is not an example of Wikipedia at its best. Pete unseth ( talk) 14:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
The author of article attributes merit to certain theories in a such a way that encourages bias. IE: "Stronger versions argue that the differences in behavior between men and women are entirely social conventions, whereas weaker versions believe that behavior is defined by biological universal factors to some extent, but that social conventions also have some effect on gendered behavior. Other theories even claim that there are more genders than just the two most commonly accepted (male and female)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.198.128 ( talk) 21:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
This page is full claims of facts that are not only unsourced but at times appear to be non-sequiturs. Many of the claims have been sitting for months with a "citation needed" and they are still there un-cited. Soul Cream ( talk) 19:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree with above, its a mess and trying to sell the idea of social origins of gender as more settled than it actually is. Notice the WHO link above doesn't support that argument. Also the quote in the article "Therefore, when transgender individuals want to have a sex change operation, they must prove that they can "pass" as a man or woman – so even the choice of changing one's gender is socially constructed." This is just outright wrong and offensive. This may have been the case in the 1970's or prior. That's far from the truth now. That's just one of many examples. Personally, the Gender identity and sexuality/sexual orientation section of the article doesn't even look salvageable to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.77.35.49 ( talk) 18:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
For Khling151:
Content-wise, the information seems to be fine!! Most of the edits that need to be made are grammatical, such as removing comma splicing, verb agreement, and introducing definitions more smoothly.
Some suggestions:
Mnrszk ( talk) 22:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I am fixing the things you pointed out.
Khling151 (
talk)
03:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
For JonJuno:
I think it's pretty good!
There's one part where the same word is repeated twice which hadn't been caught in your editing process:
It also might be helpful to organize this section even further into a couple paragraphs instead of one big paragraph, for accessibility.
Mnrszk (
talk)
22:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment! I agree and have thusly reorganized the paragraph into multiple paragraphs. (embarrassingly that was me...)
JonJuno (
talk)
02:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Great work. I feel as if the two sentences
could be more supported with concrete examples or facts. For example, the statement that it is "impossible for research findings to remain unaffected" is a sweeping generalization. Also, saying that "people are so convinced" is quite informal. It could be more precise if reworded as "Many people are convinced"
Also, the last two paragraphs would greatly benefit from adding at least one example of the claims being made. Two statements I have in mind are:
and
If an example of one or both of these statements is added, it would be very nice. Shteveno ( talk) 23:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! I changed the wording to be more formal, and I elaborated on the flaws of quantitative and qualitative research.
Absterr08 ( talk) 04:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The whole section "Research methods" is barely related to the main subject of the article. It strikes me as something created by college students who were required to make some edits for a college course. I would remove the entire section, but will let other editors consider this. Maybe some will see more redeeming value in this section than I. Pete unseth ( talk) 17:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Great edits! One thing that could be revised are the second, third, and fourth sentences of this section:
The term essentialism is mentioned in the first two sentences and explained in the last one. Perhaps the term can be explained immediately after it is introduced in order to avoid confusion.
Also, it would be nice to briefly introduce (and possibly discuss) the second and third waves of feminism in the end of this section. It will also be nice to link their wikipedia pages if you do decide to include them. Shteveno ( talk) 00:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions! I rearranged the content of the first paragraph so that it reads more clearly and added links to second and third wave feminism. Ktmacp ( talk) 05:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Impressive contribution! I think a few areas might benefit from a second look:
The intro is currently a pretty big paragraph, which can make reading challenging. It may make sense to remove some material: for instance, the first few sentences after "Butler’s text has become quite influential..." mostly summarize and analyze Butler's text, which has its own wikipedia page. Linking to the page instead and focusing on how Gender Performativity relates to gender performance and real-world applications could make it more accessible.
I also think the two subsections could use some additional sources and more neutral language. For example, in "Infancy and Young Childhood":
Right now those statements aren't verifiable, and using "We are..." statements can come off as giving a generalization. Who says our identities are predetermined? Who is "we"? Adding some sources giving supporting evidence and using a 3rd person point of view would make the statements stronger.
Finally, in the "Teen Year" sections, two phrases popped out to me:
and
If the information already appears in the section, does it need to be repeated? Cutting out repetitions could make the main points in the new info you added stand out more. Similarly, for:
This information is included in the citation already, so removing it wouldn't hurt and could improve readability.
Kmt0715 (
talk)
06:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. I attempted to minimize the intro paragraph that describes the definition and basic concept of Gender Performativity. I also agreed that the subsections needed a little work, so I took most of your advice and tried to apply it. Again, thank you for the suggestions! Cal95j ( talk) 04:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
A {{ Multiple issues}} banner containing {{ POV check}}, {{ citation style}}, and {{ Original research}} advisories from 2012 were removed in this edit without edit summary or discussion. It's true they shouldn't stay up forever, but is everyone okay with this? Mathglot ( talk) 08:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Much of content of the article refers to a small sliver of the world's population, namely the upper-middle and upper classes, mostly white, living in the richest and most developed countries in the world, primarily the Anglo-Saxon ones. Many statements make generalizations that really refer only or mostly to that very limited sector, and should be qualified with restrictive clauses which make that clear. More importantly, additional material should be added to give a more global view of the topic. Mathglot ( talk) 02:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Gender Identity & Sexuality/Sexual Orientation I feel as if the second paragraph under this subtopic is not of great use to the content of the article itself. It seems to be of a narrative tone and the article would not lose any clarification or validity if this section was deleted.
Core Gender Identity Sentences five and six could easily be conjoined as one by changing to "LaFrance, Paluck and Brescoll note that as a term, "gender identity" allows individuals to express their attitude towards and stance in relation to their current status as either men or women." By combining these two sentences, I feel the point is better covered and easier to understand for the reader.
Intersections of Gender Identity With Other Identities Second paragraph, Second sentence needs to be corrected to "Hurtado argues that white women and women of color..." There is also an issue with the second to last sentence... "sexual objects and as wikt:recalcitrant and wikt:bawdy women" I am unsure of what these terms are suppose to be.
Gender As Accomplishment The first sentence of the section needs a citation from West and Zimmerman as the statement is made according to them
Accountability In the sentence beginning with "social constructionism asserts that gender... the word "is" in "is omnirelevant" should be changed to "as"
In the second paragraph in this section, the reference to machisimo should be hyperlinked to its own wiki page
In the last paragraph of this section, "women and women" needs to changed to "men and women" & the last sentence can be deleted as it has no significance to the section.
5.3 Nurture v. Nature I would like to switch the wording to nature v. nurture as that is how the topic is referenced to commonly.
These are small edits and issues I came across while scanning the article. Would enjoy getting feedback from others to gain their opinions on my ideas for corrections. Thanks Student1543 ( talk) 16:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
wikt:recalcitrant
is a
wikilink that goes to the Wiktionary definition article for the word recalcitrant. I'm not 100% sure, but I think its presentation is improper, as the colon-prefix wikt:
is not supposed to be visible; so rather than code it [[wikt:recalcitrant]]
it should be coded [[wikt:recalcitrant|recalcitrant]]
using a
piped link, or even [[wikt:recalcitrant|]]
using the
pipe trick. This is a bit advanced for where you are now, so I'd just leave this for now, but I would definitely go have a look at the
other Wikimedia properties, because there's a lot of good stuff out there.Thank you Mathglot for your opinions and contributions. 1. GI&SSO - I agree with your point on the use of the example as an example of essentialism, and therefore, I am going to leave the section as it is. 2. CGI - Decided to combine the two sentences 3. IoGIwOI-
4. GaA - I agree that a citation is not necessarily needed in this instance, and therefore I am not adding one here. 5. Acc -
6. NvN - Going to change to Nature v. Nurture Thanks for your suggestions Student1543 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
[[User:users name here]]
, for example: [[User:Mathglot]]
renders as
User:Mathglot, and [[User:Student1543]]
renders as
User:Student1543.{{ping|users name here}}
. The at-sign you see above is the result of a {{
ping}} paging you. (You can page as many people as you want, in one ping.)~~~~
). Three tildes will add your name, but omit the date.
Mathglot (
talk)
09:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Under section Infancy and young childhood I would like to add more information after the sentence ending with "are even toys that will aid them in recognizing their proper places in society." After this sentence I would like to add
According to Barbara Kerr and Karen Multon, many parents would be puzzled to know "the tendency of little children to think that it is their clothing or toys that make them boy or girl." [1]
Student1543 ( talk) 14:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
Would anyone else agree upon the idea of deleting the last paragraph from Infancy and young childhood? I realize this paragraph does provide further explanation of the proposed idea of "gender performativity" but I do not see the need for the information. It is good information, but I just don't see it as pertinent information for this subtopic. Would anyone else agree? I don't want to remove the information if other's see a great need for it. Student1543 ( talk) 17:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Here are a few resources I have found that could be a great benefit to the content of this article 1. The Development of Gender Identity,Gender Roles, and Gender Relations in Gifted Students [1] 2. From Pink Frilly Dresses to 'One of the Boys': A Social-Cognitive Analysis of Gender Identity Development and Gender Bias. [2] 3. MASCULINITY, MALE DEVELOPMENT,GENDER, AND IDENTITY: MODERN AND POSTMODERN MEANINGS
[3] 4. Readings for Diversity and Social Justice [4]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
I am proposing an addition to the page under Social construction of gender during development. I want to add a section under this to introduce the concept and the following subtopics.
Gender features strongly in most societies and is a significant aspect of self-definition for most people. [1] One way to analyze the social influences that affect the development of gender is through the perspective of the social cognitive theory. According to Kay Bussey, social cognitive theory describes “how gender conceptions are developed and transformed across the life span". [2] The social cognitive theory views gender roles as socially constructed ideas that are obtained over one’s entire lifetime. These gender roles are “repeatedly reinforced through socialization". [3] Hackman verifies that these gender roles are instilled in us from “the moment we are born". [4] For the individual, gender construction starts with assignments to a sex category on the basis of biological genitalia at birth. [5] Following this sexual assignment, parents begin to influence gender identity by dressing children in ways that clearly display this biological category. Therefore, biological sex becomes associated with a gender through naming, dress, and the use of other gender markers. [6] Gender development continues to be affected by the outlooks of others, education institutions, parenting, media, etc. These variations of social interactions force individuals to “learn what is expected, see what is expected, act and react in expected ways, and thus simultaneously construct and maintain the gender order". [7]
Student1543 ( talk) 04:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); External link in |editor1-first=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); External link in |editor1-first=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); External link in |editor1-first=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); External link in |editor1-first=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); External link in |editor1-first=
(
help)
Theorizing Sexuality and Gender in Development. By: Bergstrom-Borins, Adryan [1]
MASCULINITY, MALE DEVELOPMENT,GENDER, AND IDENTITY: MODERN AND POSTMODERN MEANINGS (Phillips, Debby A.) Great information on gender roles and their influence on developing gender on page 407: Gender Role Strain Theory and Masculinity [2]
The Development of Gender Identity,Gender Roles, and Gender Relations in Gifted Students Kerr, Barbara A. Multon, Karen D. [3]
The Influence of Parental Attitudes and Behaviors on Children's Attitudes Toward Gender and Household Labor in Early Adulthood. Cunningham, Mick [4]
PARENTAL INFLUENCE ON CHILDREN'S SOCIALIZATION TO GENDER ROLES By: Witt, Susan D. [5]
Gender-role Attitudes in Middle Childhood: In What Ways Do Parents Influence Their Children? Antill, John K., Cunningham, John D., Cotton, Sandra [6]
Gender differences in adolescent sexual attitudes: The influence of individual and family factors. Werner-Wilson, Ronald Jay [7]
Readings for Diversity and Social Justice 3rd Edition [8]
Student1543 ( talk) 14:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
This article needs to be more heavily sourced, with citations from sources that are neutral and reputable. Also, for example, in the section "Research Methods" there are many claims that need to be backed up by citations. Some of the claims in this section and others seem biased towards a particular position and need to be checked for their neutrality. Ashlyn S Ashlyn s ( talk) 05:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I removed the following sentence from section #Gender identity and sexuality/sexual orientation:
West and Zimmerman state that these individuals wanting to be one sex or the other speaks to the "'essentialness'" of our sexual natures as woman or as men".<ref name="West and Zimmerman"/>{{clarify|date=October 2012}}
for two reasons:
Note that a full quotation of W+Z from their article, unamplified by their OR analysis, would have been fine; but instead, they quoted half a sentence, and stuck on an interpretation that got it completely wrong. (Unless I'm the one that is completely wrong.)
In reality, W+Z say that contrary to the belief that gender differences are a set of traits that are an essential attribute of our sex, they are something that is "not natural, essential, or biological" [1] but a result of our social interactions, which are then used to create both the sex categories and the gender categories and then makes the process appear to come from Nature or be rooted in biology. [2] Rather, we perform or "do" gender in a manner which promotes assignment to one of the categories, under the watchful eyes and interpretation of others; that this is socially required, that we can go along with this, fight against it, but it's impossible to do nothing about it. [3] (Imho, some agenders might disagree with the latter statement, but that's my OR, and W+Z didn't address that to my knowledge, so is entirely irrelevant here.)
I find it distressing that this misstatement of W+Z has been present since the article was created in 2010. Either that, or I've been wildly misinterpreting W+Z for ages, and if so, I'd better get on board with what they are really saying, pronto. If I'm not wrong, then we need to put something about "Doing Gender" into that section, and get it right, this time. Pinging EvergreenFir and Flyer22 Reborn for some feedback. Mathglot ( talk) 09:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
P.S. Requested opinions from WikiProject Sociology as well. Mathglot ( talk) 09:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Doing gender means creating differences between girls and boys and women and men, differences that are not natural, essential, or biological. Once the differences have been constructed, they are used to reinforce the "essentialness" of gender. ... What is at stake is, from the standpoint of interaction, the management of our "essential" natures, and from the standpoint of the individual, the continuing accomplishment of gender." (pp.137-140) In other words, the essentialness is a socially created and enforced difference. In sum, good edit and good catch. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
References
Overall the article is well written and contains a lot of great information on the topic but I was wondering what information did you add to this wiki page? Natasha Holloway ( talk) 17:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I just made an addition on this page discussing more recent studies regarding sexual orientation and its relation to emerging gender identity in children. I plan on including more information along these lines as the world has changed somewhat in recent years regarding acceptance and representation of LGBT people, so this contribution is also meant to test the waters. I understand that there are many problems with this article overall, but it does seem necessary to keep the info within updated in order to best inform readers of Wikipedia. MolluskPal ( talk) 17:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I plan on adding a section to this article focusing on Judith Butler's theory of gender performance specifically in regards to how it relates to LGBT individuals. Before I finalize this addition, I have drafted out my idea on my sandbox which can be found here and you can review it to your own satisfaction. MolluskPal ( talk) 03:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I added three new sources to the article with regard to a new subheading under applications of gender performance, they are numbered 44, 45, and 46 in references MolluskPal ( talk) 13:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
The new subheading I have created is called Queer Identity, and it covers specific examples of Judith Butler's theory as applied to the LGBTQ+ community, as well as a concept in queer art that speaks to a similar concept as Butler MolluskPal ( talk) 13:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I made an addition to the page under the Teen Years subheading on how the internet influences gender identity in teenagers and how they perceive themselves. I plan on possibly expanding on the gender construction of teenagers a little bit more, I might possibly add a subheading titled "Media Influence" as there is little talk about the media in general and it could be somewhat parallel to the "Education" subheading. Any feedback on how I can improve this would be helpful. ([User talk: Ckfs27 |talk]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckfs27 ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Edits were made to fix the sentences I had added and fix clarity. ([User talk: Ckfs27 |talk]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckfs27 ( talk • contribs) 20:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I added a sub heading titled Media under the During Development. With how prevalent media is today in the lives of young people, I felt it was necessary to add a portion on how it can and does affect a developing child/teenagers gender construction. ( Ckfs27) —Preceding undated comment added 07:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I am setting out to rewrite the page, which appears to be a cobbled together and poorly transcribed essay written for a college class. Major objectives and methods include:
Thanks you for supporting and participating in what is hopefully a test run for writing and preserving informed and informative pages about modern philosophical and cultural topics. Azeranth ( talk) 19:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.Also, "contextualizing" a claim is OR, namely WP:Synthesis. Follow these closely or someone will revert you. That's just how it works here. Crossroads -talk- 03:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a lot of original research in this article, which represents the unsupported opinions of editors based on their own reading of primary sources. I've started by tagging section #Applications of gender performance, in which most of the section is drawn from original interpretation of Judith Butler's Gender Trouble, but extends well beyond that.
This has gone on long enough. There are discussions going back a decade about this. I'm going to start removing content which is not sourced, beginning with this section, and then continuing on to other sections. Mathglot ( talk) 20:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Merge in from Gender performativity following November 2012 proposal; see Talk:Social construction of gender difference#The problems on this page could be resolved with a merger). I have no objections to material being deleted from the current page on the grounds of POV. Klbrain ( talk) 13:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The vast majority of what's described in this article is theorised, researched and going on exclusively on the territory of the USA (especially in academic circles). Then it's spread to the first-world Anglosphere countries, then to other western countries. After that, it's almost impossible to find it in other countries, where people still believe that gender is a biological construct and not a social one (try to convince someone from the Balkans that gender is a social construct, you'll be laughed at). Maybe that can be noted in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.73.175.116 ( talk) 22:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
This paragraph near the top is A) redundant B) not supported C) very convoluted therefore unclear D) uses disputed terminology as if it were not
“A related matter in feminist theory is the relationship between the ascribed status of assigned sex (male or female) and their achieved status counterparts in gender (masculine and feminine).
To parse this out - “A Related matter in feminist theory”. Not sure what that means or how the differentiation of sex and gender and their interplay are specifically feminist questions. They are also topics in psychology and sociology. Many natural Scientists would also make the distinction between biological sex and human construction of gender, and see this as an interesting area of studies (as the number of neuroscientific studies indicates)… - “ the relationship between the ascribed status of assigned sex (male or female)” —- what is “the assigned status of sex”? Where does this term come from? and —— “assigned sex” this is HIGHLY contentious. Evolutionary biologists, obstetricians, midwives, most humans and feminists do not subscribe to the (concept? Theory?) that sex is “assigned at birth”. This is a very contentious POV slipped in here as if it were ordinary language.
(“Assigned sex” as a concept has a specific use in the case of babies with DSD (intersex conditions), especially before the era of sophisticated medical tests and scans. It refers to the ascribing of a sex class by a birthing professional at first observation of the baby based on external genitalia, which in DSD babies may appear either ambiguous or opposite sexed. Ie: DSDs are not always correctly observed at birth, leading to incorrect sexing of a DSD baby. This article is not about DSDs. Biological sex on the other hand can be established from the zygote onwards, in a scientifically verifiable way. - “and their achieved status counterparts in gender” very confusing and though it references back the term “achieved status” from earlier it is still overly academic and confusing
I would guess the writer is trying to both disambiguate biological sex from human gender constructs and suggest the reader look elsewhere for discussion of how the 2 concepts inter-relate??
. Reading the intro without the paragraph doesn’t seem to harm the article, but if disambiguation is needed then something like:
“This article refers to “gender” as a human social construct, distinct from the concept of sex as a biological term. The relationship between these concepts is subject to debate, see [relevant sex/gender articles here]” 209.237.80.84 ( talk) 19:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2022 and 21 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JHolman43, ETWestacott, Kweekwa ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: King1567, Hitomi1252, VenerableBird, Thesi043, Pgvez24.
— Assignment last updated by MNmagistra ( talk) 19:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks to the work of a lot of editors, especially @Mathglot, I don't see a whole lot of WP:OR in this article. I propose that the global tag be removed, and that editors with specific objections either bold-remove the offending text or apply the template at the section level. Because this is a culture war topic, I am not willing to make changed "above the fold" without establishing consensus here first. I'd rather not go through WP:RfC unless the community thinks it's warranted, but could we use the !vote (•support : •oppose) nomenclature to make everyone's points clear? Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 21:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The lede for this article is shaky. Overlapping edits over the last decade have removed bad info but the result is tough to read. It also has some odd syntheses of sources that don't seem to support the actual wording. As an example, the split between the specific sociological concept and the general usage is pretty clear in the body, but muddled in the lede. I would like to propose the following, collectively rip it apart, and come to consensus on a better version:
The social construction of gender is the set of perceptions within a particular society regarding the gender expression considered appropriate for a particular sex. Specifically, the sociological concept encompasses the cultural origins, mechanisms, and manifestations of both the perceptions and expectations around sex and gender. It stipulates that gender roles are an achieved status (in contrast to sex, which is an ascribed status) in a social environment that motivates conforming behaviour both implicitly and explicitly.[1].
(where [1]. is the cite and see-also currently in place)
Last1in ( talk) 22:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The article currently contains a significant amount of material that is not really part of the topic of the article. For example, the section on "Depression" does not add anything to a reader's of this theory. One cause of this may have be that the article has been an assignment for many college students who are required to make additions to it. A problem has been stated above, that several parts of the article treat the title of the article as an established fact, rather than one of different theoretical approaches to gender. I think the article needs to be streamlined. Pete unseth ( talk) 03:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)