Talk:Woman

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 [1] 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)

There is absolutely a point to skirting around 'are women' unless there is a workable definition of 'woman' that might include people with male physiology. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 09:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

There is, indeed, a workable definition of 'woman' that definitely includes people with male physiology/anatomy. Here are three of the key definitions of 'woman':

1. Adult humans who have biologically female bodies (i.e., bodies that produces eggs instead of sperm, including bodies that were reasonably expected to produce eggs instead of sperm but that, due to internal or external factors aren't yet/aren't currently/are no longer producing eggs and are also [an absolute requirement for this definition] not producing sperm). This includes cisgender, nonbinary, and trans people who were born with female bodies. It even includes some intersex people, as most intersex people's bodies are outside the typical range in some respect but are still predominantly either male or female.
2. Adult humans who, regardless of what kind of biological body they have, have a feminine gender identity. This includes cisgender people with biologically female bodies (the overwhelming majority) and also some intersex people and some transgender people with biologically male bodies. It excludes cis men, trans men, and non-binary people.
3. Adult humans who, regardless of what kind of biological body they have and what kind of gender identity they have, are currently expressing a feminine gender. This is mostly cisgender people with biologically female bodies but it also includes, e.g., drag performers during their performances, cross dressing guests at a costume party, pantomine dames in theaters, etc. This is also the sense one uses when speaking about a complete stranger. Consider the person reporting an injured pedestrian. The call to emergency services say "We need an ambulance. A woman just got hit by a car!" Polite people do not first inquire with the injured pedestrian about their reproductive abilities or internal identities before describing her as a woman.

Each person is entitled to decide which of these definitions is the most important or most salient to them. But nobody is entitled to say that some of these definitions don't exist just because they think one definition is better or another is wrong. Words mean what society says they mean, not what one individual says they mean.

Just so you know, editors have had a number of conversations about the topic of this article, and we've decided that a "big tent" approach is best. That is, we've decided that article called "Woman" is going to have different parts that use each of these definitions. Some of it will be about people who are biologically female, even though that excludes trans women. Some of it will be about people with a feminine gender identity, even though that excludes some biological females. Some of it will be about people who express a feminine gender identity, even though that excludes some "butch" biological females and trans women who hide their identity. If we wanted this article to be about solely the biological definition, we'd probably have called it Female human body. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Am I correct in thinking that you are saying 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.

That then becomes central to the definition and should therefore surely head up the Lead?

All of the 'typicalies' and 'generalies' can follow on from there. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Assuming that question is directed to me, I think a woman is an adult human with a female body and any kind of identity, or even if that adult human is too disabled to have an identity at all and a woman is an adult human with any kind of body that self-identifies as having a feminine gender identity and a woman is an adult human with any kind of body or identity who is currently expressing a feminine gender.

Logically, therefore, I believe that some people are both men and women at the same time – at least so far as "being" a man or woman means that some part(!) of our articles on Man and Woman apply to those individuals.

But then, I also believe that the word inflammable means both "easy to set on fire" and "impossible to set on fire", and that the word bimonthly means both every two months and twice in each month – because that's what the dictionary says. It does not bother me if a word has more than one meaning, and it does not bother me if all the meanings of the word woman are included in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I suggested something similar and I got a warning from the moderators. The thread is long archived, but the ensuing row is in my talk page. The facts that Wikipedia states are:

1. The “woman” article says that most women, but not all, are of the female sex. The rest are either sexless or of the male sex, it is not specified.

2. Any organism that produces sperm is of the male sex, as stated in the article “male”, regardless of gender identity.

If we put 1 and 2 together, it is clear that trans women, at least those who produce sperm, are undoubtedly of the male sex. Of course, all the preferred sources used here always tie “male” with “assigned at birth”, but obviously being assigned male at birth and being of the male sex are perfectly compatible. Jorgebox4 (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the relevant point for this article is: None of that stops them from being women.

Of the people discussing this subject on your talk page, only two are actually admins, and one has been blocked as a WP:SOCK. It is not safe to assume that anyone posting on your talk page, no matter how confident they sound, is actually an admin and/or giving you accurate information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 11 April 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)

How is “to live as a woman” very clear? What does the article say about how women live? Is it the way they present themselves? It also implies that trans women are only women if they start “living as women” whatever that means. Jorgebox4 (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

"To live as a woman" is primarily a statement about their gender expression. I share your concern about this implying that trans women don't start being women until their gender expression matches their gender identity. I doubt that's verifiable, and I doubt that Wikipedia editors would accept that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 11 April 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)

Except that "woman" also includes adult humans who have no capacity for forming or holding an identity. Women do not stop being women just because they are severely disabled. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Good point.

Which criteria would you then use?

Their last know gender identity preference.

Their biologically defined sex.

The sex they were assigned at birth. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

If someone is so severely disabled that they have no self identity, no sense of self, then I would ask if one could really definitively assign any terminology to them. At what level of braindeath, of non-sentience, does a person just become a pile of cells? All of which is to say that this is not an argument I would consider as particularly strong. Snokalok (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Likewise, if someone was born without the lower half of their body, but said they were a woman, would you see it as worthy of dispute? Snokalok (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Luke, the answer is "the one that is relevant to the context". If you have a person who has been severely disabled since birth, then you'd use the gender corresponding to their sex, on the assumption that it's statistically likely to be correct.

Snokalok, I'm really surprised to see such open ableism from you, and I urge you to consider what those views mean in a transphobic world. Gender identity in dementia patients is a slippery thing, and you can find high-quality sources supporting just about any approach, but I have never yet seen one that says showing respect for disabled trans people is unimportant because they're just "a pile of cells". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

this article is not neutral

the sentence "some women are transgender " is not neutral and should be changed ASAP since its subjective and not an objective truth

i also noticed that the person who made the edit for that sentence is named "a socialist trans girl" which means its also biased

personal opinions does not belong in a wikipedia article Emalin1005 (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

and the source does not say that transwomen are women Emalin1005 (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Emalin1005. Gender is a designated contentious topic on Wikipedia, meaning that the community's guidelines are enforced more stringently. Please avoid ad hominem attacks, including accusing editors like A Socialist Trans Girl of bias based on their identity.

This article's definition of trans woman is a recurring point of contention on this page. Some version of that sentence has existed for nearly a decade; it was not inserted recently by ASTG. It would help to read some of the archived discussions linked atop this talk page, so you can avoid repeating past arguments. Talk:Trans woman/Definitions contains a list of various definitions of trans woman, including many which support the use of phrases like a woman who was assigned male at birth.

The sentence defining woman and the sentence defining trans woman make up the majority of all discussions in the history of this article. There are currently four others actively occuring on this talk page. Having been party to these (often heated) arguments for nearly five years, I would gently and kindly encourage everyone with a personal stake in this one sentence to focus on improving literally any other article. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 01:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@RoxySaunders so you are saying that i need to take this article with a grain of salt? Emalin1005 (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Emalin - you are concerned that the article contains things that are "not an objective truth".

You are starting out in the wrong place there. Wikipedia isn't truth. Once you realise that it all gets easier to understand.

The people who read these articles mostly understand that and they too give them the weight they deserve. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Lukewarmbeer they still have to cite several sources, especially on such controversial terms Emalin1005 (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

which they do not Emalin1005 (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

they have to have sources that backs up their statement Emalin1005 (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I feel like by that logic you could say "Jimmy Johnny the biography subject is not considered a person until an RSP green source explicitly says they're a person and not a subhuman, and thus we cannot apply BLP to their article. Wikipedia has to take a neutral stance." because that's what this effectively comes down to, the same strain of philosophy that argues over how you define personhood, humanity, sentience, and yes, gender. If, say, CNN's approval is required to say that someone is in fact a person or a human or even just a man or woman, then no one is really any of those things. Snokalok (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Snokalok excuse me?Where the heck did i mention CNN????? Emalin1005 (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I said "If, say, CNN" and in the English language, if one puts the word "say," before something such a manner, that means that one is bringing up a hypothetical example Snokalok (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Snokalok you do not seem to understand, only some people see trans-women as women and it is therefore not neutral to say that "transwoman are woman". such statements needs strong indepent sources and you can not therefore back up such a statement with vague sources like 6 Emalin1005 (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

And in the summary as well, they say (without any source listed at all) that gender roles in patriarchal societies have resulted in gender inequality. Now, most of the human population still lives in societies with these rules, yet many of them do not consider it to be inequality, merely different people being designed to perform different functions in equal or equivalent levels of honor and dignity. And of course, it's 100% gender inequality, honestly a better word is just flat out systemic misogyny; and yet by your logic here, because much of the world does not believe that a woman not being allowed to do the same job as a man qualifies as inequality, Wikipedia cannot say that either. Snokalok (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Snokalok its not the same since misogyny is mostly cultural Emalin1005 (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

So are you saying that some cultures are less worthy of representation on the project, or just that you don't believe misogyny exists in more progressive cultures?

Because I can assure you, just as transphobia exists in more cultures all across the world, so too does misogyny. Snokalok (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

also before someone starts accuse me of being transphobe, oxford languages states that controversy means prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion Emalin1005 (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't call you transphobic.

If you have the time and energy I would suggest that you have a look through the article, identify any text that is not supported by a reliable source and draw attention to that.

At the moment, in the Lead, we have Miriam Webster - that's a dictionary and they can be problematic as RS. The other is an article from the American Psychological Association.

So the statement to which you object is supported. It's up to you to find better RS if you want to rewrite something.

Alternatively you have to put a decent argument together as to why the sources quoted are not reliable or suitable.

Read Wikipedia:RS

BTW I would encourage interested editors to find something better than the citations mentioned.. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Supreme Court Judgement

As widely reported and to quote Pink News "UK Supreme court rules legal definition of a woman excludes trans women". No doubt we will need to have some discussion on the best way to include this in our article. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Two things

1. They ruled this strictly as a matter of interpreting the language of the Equality Act, not as an ontological fact.

2. Do we? Does the British government hold some special place in defining reality? Is the UK supreme court run by mages who bend the very fabric of the cosmos to their will, or is it just a group of lawyers in wigs who sit there and go “Here’s my take” Snokalok (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The Supreme Court simply define what the law in the united kingdom means. It's significant. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't disagree that it's significant, I just think that it belongs more readily on an article about the equality act or on trans rights in the UK. The latest thoughts of the government of an island in the Atlantic by comparison just, don't carry due weight on this scale. Snokalok (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

There are probably other articles this could be covered on, although NY times is a more suitable source than PinkNews [2]. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

You brought this up last December, and the idea that the UK court issues the One True™ Definition of woman did not gain support then, either.

Do we need to have a sentence about this in Woman#Terminology? Or do we need a whole section on Woman#Legal definitions? I favor the first at the moment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I would agree - the first, although a little more than a single sentence probably. Poss one in Sexuality and gender? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

We may need coverage at Wikipedia on the legal issues surrounding the definitions and rulings, but I am concerned about the WP:DUEWEIGHT issues about placing them in this article in more than summary form, or at all. The § Terminology section is already half the size of § Sexuality and gender and almost the size of § History; adding significantly to § Terminology may be undue. I suspect there has been enough attention to this topic that there is now sufficient sourcing available to write an article on Definitions of woman, with sections on history, biology, medicine, social, legal, political, cultural, and more, and just summarize that here. The recent UK legal definition could certainly be part of that. How much of an article like that should be summarized here is an open question, but I think the current section is about as big as it should be, and maybe too big already. Also noting that this happened literally a few hours ago. Mathglot (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

While there may be sufficient sources to avoid doing so (e.g., Ain't I a Woman?) I think such an article would tend toward a WP:COATRACK for the dozen British academics writing smug and rational papers about how post-Hegelian metaphysics prove that transgenders shouldn't pee. In the hopes of countering another obvious systemic bias, I would encourage scoping such a hypothetical article as Definition of woman and man. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 20:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The "legal definition of woman" is not as clearly scoped to this topic as it might appear, as in practice such a definition only applies to trans people (or anyone whose gender might be challenged). This court ruling is certainly not DUE here (WP:NOTNEWS), in contrast to the greater topic of Transphobia and Legal status of transgender people. Explaining it requires the context of the 2020s US anti-LGBTQ movement, gender-critical feminism, "adult human female", etc.. Maybe the broad concept of transphobia warrants a sentence in Woman#Terminology and Man#Terminology alongside our definition of trans men and women. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 20:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I understand that the legal definition also applies to people whose gender is accidentally mistaken (e.g., if a cisgender male is discriminated against because the person mistakenly thought the victim was a woman), so it's not just an issue for trans people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Maybe worthy of coverage at Trans woman, but I think it would be terribly UNDUE here. We're trying to provide a broad overview of the topic. We ought also keep NOTNEWS and RECENTISM in mind. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• If this were to be included in the article, it could be placed under a new subsection titled "Legal" under the "Terminology" section. Some1 (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• This belongs in Anti-transgender movement in the United Kingdom. It doesn't belong here. The attempt to exclude trans women from the definition of woman is quite extreme, and the fact that it is backed by some governments in countries that are either authoritarian or experiencing democratic backsliding (Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States under Donald Trump) doesn't change that. Those are countries that are known to be extremely hostile to LGBT+ people. --Tataral (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• I think the judgment should be used to inform the article. One example of how the article could benefit from revision is the final paragraph of the lead, "Some women are transgender, meaning they were assigned male at birth...": the article is clearly misleading in this respect, by implying there is a unanimous consensus across all definitions. The supreme court has highlighted divergent views on the issue that are not accommodated all that well by the article. Betty Logan (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• Does the article currently include anything about a single law in a single country? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)