This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"Some intersex children with ambigous genitals, and biologically male transgender children, may also be classified or self-identify as girls."
This sentence needs a lot of attention. It sounds a lot like a statement that people believe, which is that transsexual women are simply men who choose to call themselves women because they are silly. One thing to know is that although this statement (the statement in the preceding sentence of this paragraph) is technically not true, many people think it's true. We need to re-word the sentence in the article that I repeated in quotation marks in this section of the talk page so that it's no longer consistent with this point of view. Georgia guy ( talk) 12:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure it comes from Unicef but it is suspect b/c beyond the title it is grouping many countries which are not Islamic and discussing a common problem. Islam is not the agent of the educational crisis. It givesBold text the reader the impression that in Christian world this issue is non-existent. Which is odd considering how terrible education is in Congo. and Southern Africa. Yes some Islamic groups suppress education,but when you set up a casual relationship like that you going to have to explain the trend in Non-Muslim parts of the world where women are also neglected in Education--like rural India. And if Islam is the agent then please explain why Iran has more Women Uni graduates than most Western Countries.? -- Inayity ( talk) 21:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
that article is only about girlzz .. guyzz always respects the girls . girls are more sensitive than others .. § — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenny jennie ( talk • contribs) 12:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
The expression "girl next door", meaning a wholesome type, originates many years earlier than this article suggests as a search on songs using this term either in title or the body of lyrics will show. eg "The Boy Next Door" from the 1940's film "Meet me in St Louis" includes in the published sheet music alternative words "How can I ignore the girl next door." 86.191.195.69 ( talk) 10:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
girls are defentley the best xx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.37.134.144 ( talk) 14:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Not all girls are female. That's like saying gender is the same as sex which it isn't. MarleyWha ( talk) 10:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Higher up on this talk page, someone wrote "not all girls are female". This statement has the understood meaning that gender must be distinguished from sex, as the user is saying. But it also implies that the use of the word "female" is a defining criterion for talking about sex and not gender. Any thoughts on this?? Georgia guy ( talk) 14:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Girl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Girl has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The term girl may also be used to mean a young woman,[1] and is somtimes used as a synonym for daughter.
This sentence has a spelling error. The word sometimes is misspelled as somtimes. Please fix this error as soon as possible. Thank you. 72.48.66.71 ( talk) 00:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
The statement in question runs:
I maintain that "outright" constitutes bias. More particularly, it is in violation of the policy of Neutral point of View, and in particular in violation of the policy that recommends non-judgemental language, for the use of "outright" implies a judgement upon the acceptability of sex segregation as some peoples practice it in their societies according to their culture.
Here is the Wiktionary definition of "outright":
Wholly, completely and entirely.
I refute those allegations outright.
Openly and without reservation.
I have just responded outright to that question.
At once.
Two people died outright and one more later.
With no outstanding conditions.
I have bought the house outright.
(informal) Blatantly; inexcusably.
That was an outright stupid thing to say.
It was this last sense of "outright" that I took to be active in the statement "outright sex segregation," although in that expression "outright" is used as an adjective. Here are the relevant examples of "outright" used as an adjective:
Total or complete.
We achieved outright domination. Truths, half truths and outright lies. With little effort they found dozens of outright lies. He found a pattern of non-transparency and outright deception.
Notice that domination, lies, and deception are all moral evils.
Even if the original editor did not intend to imply a negative value judgement of sex segregation, the word "outright" can still invite it. A neutral word would therefore be "complete." I will make the appropriate change. Wordwright ( talk) 21:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The first two sentences of the last paragraph of the intro currently run:
Not only is no authority cited for these claims, but the policy of neutral point of view is violated: if women's status can be high or low or equal, why emphasize low societal position? If girls "may" be unwanted, may they not also be wanted? If the state "may" invest less, may the state not also invest more? The exclusion of the positive possibilities has the effect of promoting the negative possibility as the only possibility worthy of mention. And is that claim true for every society that has ever existed? I will remind everyone that homo sapiens have existed for 250,000 years, that the state as an institution is only a few thousand years old, and that the state is by no means a universal social form, so this statement also violates viewpoint neutrality because it is Eurocentric and presentist: it takes for granted the Western idea that the state has a responsibility to invest money in state services to help parents or agencies to raise children, and it ignores the fact that girls have existed for hundreds of thousands of years and makes a claim that, if it is true at all, cannot possibly be true of all societies that do exist or have ever existed. Thus you need not be an expert, or have any partisan attitudes, to see that these statements are biased and unsubstantiated. They are prima facie rather gross violations of WP policies.
I suggest that a neutral statement about the fact that the status and treatment of girls can vary in many ways, and that the authority cited be the author of a book or article in which no Western institutions or values are presupposed as the norm. Wordwright ( talk) 23:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
"Feminism" is a Western ideology; there is no reason whatever to presuppose that every article that pertains to females must be written and edited to reflect that ideology. In a description of any people's practices of rearing girls one should use neutral language. Consider this statement now in the introduction:
We always use "outright" to characterize something negative—nobody says, "He was in engaged in activities that ranged from simple kindness to outright charity." So this statement means that in the range of girls' upbringing, there is the positive extreme of an upbringing that is relatively the same as at of boys to the negative extreme of outright sex segregation and completely different gender roles.
Second, if the sexes are segregated and the gender roles for boys and girls differ, then the segregation and the roles cannot be a part of girls' upbringing alone, for you cannot segregate girls without also segregating boys, and you cannot raise girls with a set of gender roles strictly for girls unless you also raise boys with a set of gender roles strictly for boys. You can conceive of segregation and different gender roles as part of girls' upbringing alone only if you presuppose that they are something that one does to girls that one does not do to boys; and there is nothing to justify this presupposition, either.
This statement is not neutral at all; instead, it is written on the unjustified presupposition that there is some single spectrum along which anybody, regardless of society, culture, and historical era, will place every people's customs for rearing girls, and anybody will see that there is one and only one set of measures or descriptions that will characterize the range from one extreme to the other. And it is also written on the unjustified presupposition that the positive extreme is equality, and the negative extreme is difference. These presuppositions are ideological and unacceptable.
I will change the offending statement, but I suggest that this article be removed from the portal of feminism. Wordwright ( talk) 01:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
It just seems like an odd descriptor. The only non-human usage might be hominids or science fiction characters.
Is the term becoming more accepted for young adult females? College students? Perhaps depicting social groups... "Girl's Night Out"? Keelec ( talk) 09:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Girl is also used in English as a synonym of woman, to describe adult human females. The corollary for males is "guy". "Gal" could also be used but it less commons in contemporary speech than "girl." (Example: Q: Were there just guys at the party? A: No, there were some girls there, too.) It sounds odd to put "women" in this sentence because women correlates to "men," not "guys." Please update this to take away the feminist bias in the article, as some feminists have decided very recently that calling an adult female a "girl" is yet another example (they're always imagining more) of oppression and patriarchy and that somehow doing this is demeaning, patronizing, infantilizing, or meant to diminish the object. It's none of those things. The correct dictionary definition of "girl" includes a list of synonyms and among those is "woman." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.132.38 ( talk) 19:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"Some intersex children with ambigous genitals, and biologically male transgender children, may also be classified or self-identify as girls."
This sentence needs a lot of attention. It sounds a lot like a statement that people believe, which is that transsexual women are simply men who choose to call themselves women because they are silly. One thing to know is that although this statement (the statement in the preceding sentence of this paragraph) is technically not true, many people think it's true. We need to re-word the sentence in the article that I repeated in quotation marks in this section of the talk page so that it's no longer consistent with this point of view. Georgia guy ( talk) 12:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure it comes from Unicef but it is suspect b/c beyond the title it is grouping many countries which are not Islamic and discussing a common problem. Islam is not the agent of the educational crisis. It givesBold text the reader the impression that in Christian world this issue is non-existent. Which is odd considering how terrible education is in Congo. and Southern Africa. Yes some Islamic groups suppress education,but when you set up a casual relationship like that you going to have to explain the trend in Non-Muslim parts of the world where women are also neglected in Education--like rural India. And if Islam is the agent then please explain why Iran has more Women Uni graduates than most Western Countries.? -- Inayity ( talk) 21:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
that article is only about girlzz .. guyzz always respects the girls . girls are more sensitive than others .. § — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenny jennie ( talk • contribs) 12:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
The expression "girl next door", meaning a wholesome type, originates many years earlier than this article suggests as a search on songs using this term either in title or the body of lyrics will show. eg "The Boy Next Door" from the 1940's film "Meet me in St Louis" includes in the published sheet music alternative words "How can I ignore the girl next door." 86.191.195.69 ( talk) 10:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
girls are defentley the best xx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.37.134.144 ( talk) 14:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Not all girls are female. That's like saying gender is the same as sex which it isn't. MarleyWha ( talk) 10:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Higher up on this talk page, someone wrote "not all girls are female". This statement has the understood meaning that gender must be distinguished from sex, as the user is saying. But it also implies that the use of the word "female" is a defining criterion for talking about sex and not gender. Any thoughts on this?? Georgia guy ( talk) 14:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Girl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Girl has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The term girl may also be used to mean a young woman,[1] and is somtimes used as a synonym for daughter.
This sentence has a spelling error. The word sometimes is misspelled as somtimes. Please fix this error as soon as possible. Thank you. 72.48.66.71 ( talk) 00:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
The statement in question runs:
I maintain that "outright" constitutes bias. More particularly, it is in violation of the policy of Neutral point of View, and in particular in violation of the policy that recommends non-judgemental language, for the use of "outright" implies a judgement upon the acceptability of sex segregation as some peoples practice it in their societies according to their culture.
Here is the Wiktionary definition of "outright":
Wholly, completely and entirely.
I refute those allegations outright.
Openly and without reservation.
I have just responded outright to that question.
At once.
Two people died outright and one more later.
With no outstanding conditions.
I have bought the house outright.
(informal) Blatantly; inexcusably.
That was an outright stupid thing to say.
It was this last sense of "outright" that I took to be active in the statement "outright sex segregation," although in that expression "outright" is used as an adjective. Here are the relevant examples of "outright" used as an adjective:
Total or complete.
We achieved outright domination. Truths, half truths and outright lies. With little effort they found dozens of outright lies. He found a pattern of non-transparency and outright deception.
Notice that domination, lies, and deception are all moral evils.
Even if the original editor did not intend to imply a negative value judgement of sex segregation, the word "outright" can still invite it. A neutral word would therefore be "complete." I will make the appropriate change. Wordwright ( talk) 21:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The first two sentences of the last paragraph of the intro currently run:
Not only is no authority cited for these claims, but the policy of neutral point of view is violated: if women's status can be high or low or equal, why emphasize low societal position? If girls "may" be unwanted, may they not also be wanted? If the state "may" invest less, may the state not also invest more? The exclusion of the positive possibilities has the effect of promoting the negative possibility as the only possibility worthy of mention. And is that claim true for every society that has ever existed? I will remind everyone that homo sapiens have existed for 250,000 years, that the state as an institution is only a few thousand years old, and that the state is by no means a universal social form, so this statement also violates viewpoint neutrality because it is Eurocentric and presentist: it takes for granted the Western idea that the state has a responsibility to invest money in state services to help parents or agencies to raise children, and it ignores the fact that girls have existed for hundreds of thousands of years and makes a claim that, if it is true at all, cannot possibly be true of all societies that do exist or have ever existed. Thus you need not be an expert, or have any partisan attitudes, to see that these statements are biased and unsubstantiated. They are prima facie rather gross violations of WP policies.
I suggest that a neutral statement about the fact that the status and treatment of girls can vary in many ways, and that the authority cited be the author of a book or article in which no Western institutions or values are presupposed as the norm. Wordwright ( talk) 23:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
"Feminism" is a Western ideology; there is no reason whatever to presuppose that every article that pertains to females must be written and edited to reflect that ideology. In a description of any people's practices of rearing girls one should use neutral language. Consider this statement now in the introduction:
We always use "outright" to characterize something negative—nobody says, "He was in engaged in activities that ranged from simple kindness to outright charity." So this statement means that in the range of girls' upbringing, there is the positive extreme of an upbringing that is relatively the same as at of boys to the negative extreme of outright sex segregation and completely different gender roles.
Second, if the sexes are segregated and the gender roles for boys and girls differ, then the segregation and the roles cannot be a part of girls' upbringing alone, for you cannot segregate girls without also segregating boys, and you cannot raise girls with a set of gender roles strictly for girls unless you also raise boys with a set of gender roles strictly for boys. You can conceive of segregation and different gender roles as part of girls' upbringing alone only if you presuppose that they are something that one does to girls that one does not do to boys; and there is nothing to justify this presupposition, either.
This statement is not neutral at all; instead, it is written on the unjustified presupposition that there is some single spectrum along which anybody, regardless of society, culture, and historical era, will place every people's customs for rearing girls, and anybody will see that there is one and only one set of measures or descriptions that will characterize the range from one extreme to the other. And it is also written on the unjustified presupposition that the positive extreme is equality, and the negative extreme is difference. These presuppositions are ideological and unacceptable.
I will change the offending statement, but I suggest that this article be removed from the portal of feminism. Wordwright ( talk) 01:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
It just seems like an odd descriptor. The only non-human usage might be hominids or science fiction characters.
Is the term becoming more accepted for young adult females? College students? Perhaps depicting social groups... "Girl's Night Out"? Keelec ( talk) 09:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Girl is also used in English as a synonym of woman, to describe adult human females. The corollary for males is "guy". "Gal" could also be used but it less commons in contemporary speech than "girl." (Example: Q: Were there just guys at the party? A: No, there were some girls there, too.) It sounds odd to put "women" in this sentence because women correlates to "men," not "guys." Please update this to take away the feminist bias in the article, as some feminists have decided very recently that calling an adult female a "girl" is yet another example (they're always imagining more) of oppression and patriarchy and that somehow doing this is demeaning, patronizing, infantilizing, or meant to diminish the object. It's none of those things. The correct dictionary definition of "girl" includes a list of synonyms and among those is "woman." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.132.38 ( talk) 19:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)