This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gender essentialism 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 page is not a forum for general discussion about Gender essentialism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Gender essentialism at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Samccarter.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This was addressed earlier, but it is still here. I believe that gender essentialism applies equally to men and to women. But the article still contains this: "gender essentialism is the attribution of a fixed essence to women." I do not believe that this is the basic understanding of gender essentialism. Who wants to change it? 16:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm coming at this from the belief that "men and women" is the more common way of say it, and therefore any deviation from that should be justified. It seems to me that, in this case, writing it as "women and men" implies that women are different from men, rather than the two different from each other. Wasn't expecting this to be a contentious edit, and happy to leave it as it was if you don't agree. Thanks. BariNeon ( talk) 15:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Collapsed per
WP:NOTFORUM
|
---|
This essay feels like something some activist who create to push a narrative. CycoMa ( talk) 21:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC) |
Please reread WP:TALK about the purpose of a Talk page. If you have nothing to say about how to improve the article, then please just don't say it. New users might get a pass the first couple of times, but you've been around long enough to know better. Mathglot ( talk) 00:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
To anyone new to discussion, me calling it an essay is a typo. CycoMa ( talk) 04:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Also sorry for the first comment, I must admit I should have probably explained myself. CycoMa ( talk) 04:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry about that last discussion I probably didn’t explain probably what I mean. When I read this essay it feels like it’s only thinking about the topic from a certain point of view like it’s the only point of view on the topic.
There could be a chance this article is relying a lot on partisan sources. Not to mention there are sources here that don’t probably cite their page numbers. CycoMa ( talk) 00:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
The characterization of Gender essentialism as including (all) differences as being innate is such an obvious strawman statement that I wonder why it was put in in the first place. But my first attempt to make it more nuanced was reverted so now I suggests to remove the phrase "In contrast to gender essentialism, which views differences between men and women as innate, universal, and immutable," completely. As it is not even in line with the top of the article. What do you think? -- Thorseth ( talk) 12:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 15 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 2024adl ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Yui0712Char ( talk) 20:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
It is always best to present a position through it's proponents, not by summarizing what the opponents say. For example, in describing the political position of the government of Ukraine, it is better to cite Volodymyr Zelensky's statements than Vladimir Putin's statements. The section on "Masculinity" is based only on statements by Bem, one of its strong opponents. This is not an appropriate source. I am inserting "citation needed". I hope somebody finds appropriate sources. Pete unseth ( talk) 19:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
@ Pete unseth: The lead should follow the body of the article per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, but the article should also be consistent with other articles such as non-binary people per MOS:CONSISTENT.
It is evident that gender is not binary, and gender essentialism in incomplete without that fact. — CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 06:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
The article claims that "Feminist activists, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott were among some of the first to take a public stand against gender essentialist." They demanded more rights for women. I am not sure that means they stood against "gender essentialist" positions. This should be clarified or removed. Pete unseth ( talk) 17:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
For the section Women's suffrage movement, I don't see a clear link between the content currently in that section, and the topic of gender essentialism. Is there any link established in the sources? Or are we as readers meant to infer that there is some clear connection between the content and the article topic? Hist9600 ( talk) 00:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Sentence near the end of the introduction seems potentially misleading due to incompleteness. Perhaps something softer like “while the philosophic position remains open to debate in feminist circles” would be better? Presently, article claims “many” disagree, citing a single source (not many), and failing to consider those feminists that do not disagree. 174.114.177.153 ( talk) 13:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
There is a blog article on wordpress titled sex, gender, and science by blogger Dave Miller that came out recently. I think it would make sense to base some of this article over showing what their side says (the essentialists) rather than strawmanning it. may as well go right from the source.
https://genderandscience8.wordpress.com/2024/04/09/sex-gender-and-science/ Philipbrochard ( talk) 01:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Scientific sexism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 25 § Scientific sexism until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 03:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gender essentialism 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 page is not a forum for general discussion about Gender essentialism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Gender essentialism at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Samccarter.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This was addressed earlier, but it is still here. I believe that gender essentialism applies equally to men and to women. But the article still contains this: "gender essentialism is the attribution of a fixed essence to women." I do not believe that this is the basic understanding of gender essentialism. Who wants to change it? 16:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm coming at this from the belief that "men and women" is the more common way of say it, and therefore any deviation from that should be justified. It seems to me that, in this case, writing it as "women and men" implies that women are different from men, rather than the two different from each other. Wasn't expecting this to be a contentious edit, and happy to leave it as it was if you don't agree. Thanks. BariNeon ( talk) 15:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Collapsed per
WP:NOTFORUM
|
---|
This essay feels like something some activist who create to push a narrative. CycoMa ( talk) 21:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC) |
Please reread WP:TALK about the purpose of a Talk page. If you have nothing to say about how to improve the article, then please just don't say it. New users might get a pass the first couple of times, but you've been around long enough to know better. Mathglot ( talk) 00:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
To anyone new to discussion, me calling it an essay is a typo. CycoMa ( talk) 04:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Also sorry for the first comment, I must admit I should have probably explained myself. CycoMa ( talk) 04:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry about that last discussion I probably didn’t explain probably what I mean. When I read this essay it feels like it’s only thinking about the topic from a certain point of view like it’s the only point of view on the topic.
There could be a chance this article is relying a lot on partisan sources. Not to mention there are sources here that don’t probably cite their page numbers. CycoMa ( talk) 00:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
The characterization of Gender essentialism as including (all) differences as being innate is such an obvious strawman statement that I wonder why it was put in in the first place. But my first attempt to make it more nuanced was reverted so now I suggests to remove the phrase "In contrast to gender essentialism, which views differences between men and women as innate, universal, and immutable," completely. As it is not even in line with the top of the article. What do you think? -- Thorseth ( talk) 12:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 15 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 2024adl ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Yui0712Char ( talk) 20:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
It is always best to present a position through it's proponents, not by summarizing what the opponents say. For example, in describing the political position of the government of Ukraine, it is better to cite Volodymyr Zelensky's statements than Vladimir Putin's statements. The section on "Masculinity" is based only on statements by Bem, one of its strong opponents. This is not an appropriate source. I am inserting "citation needed". I hope somebody finds appropriate sources. Pete unseth ( talk) 19:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
@ Pete unseth: The lead should follow the body of the article per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, but the article should also be consistent with other articles such as non-binary people per MOS:CONSISTENT.
It is evident that gender is not binary, and gender essentialism in incomplete without that fact. — CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 06:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
The article claims that "Feminist activists, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott were among some of the first to take a public stand against gender essentialist." They demanded more rights for women. I am not sure that means they stood against "gender essentialist" positions. This should be clarified or removed. Pete unseth ( talk) 17:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
For the section Women's suffrage movement, I don't see a clear link between the content currently in that section, and the topic of gender essentialism. Is there any link established in the sources? Or are we as readers meant to infer that there is some clear connection between the content and the article topic? Hist9600 ( talk) 00:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Sentence near the end of the introduction seems potentially misleading due to incompleteness. Perhaps something softer like “while the philosophic position remains open to debate in feminist circles” would be better? Presently, article claims “many” disagree, citing a single source (not many), and failing to consider those feminists that do not disagree. 174.114.177.153 ( talk) 13:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
There is a blog article on wordpress titled sex, gender, and science by blogger Dave Miller that came out recently. I think it would make sense to base some of this article over showing what their side says (the essentialists) rather than strawmanning it. may as well go right from the source.
https://genderandscience8.wordpress.com/2024/04/09/sex-gender-and-science/ Philipbrochard ( talk) 01:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Scientific sexism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 25 § Scientific sexism until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 03:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)