Talk:Gender role/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

'language' section

Language is a system of abstractions and frequently deals with idealized cases. The more sharply masculine gender roles are distinguished from feminine gender roles, the less likely it is that any individual human being will comply perfectly with the requirements of that gender role. And besides that fact, every individual in a society is likely to have his or her unique definition of the "proper masculine gender role" and the "proper feminine gender role". Any individual, then, might well be expected to be in compliance with the gender role ideals held by some people and to fail to be in compliance with the gender role ideals held by some other people. When, for instance, a boy cries too readily for the tastes of some people, they will call the child a "sissy" to indicate that in their view he is not a very ideal boy. There are many pejorative role-related terms. For example, in most current and known historical cultures, martial combat has been seen as mostly (or only) appropriate for men, while child-rearing has been seen as mostly (or only) the domain of women.

I removed this section because it has little to do with language and most of this has been mentioned someplace else in the article.--Fenice 19:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What the?

For lesbian and gay people, gender roles can have specific legal consequences. On the one hand, in some countries, for example, they are denied the right to marry because they do not comply with the norms of society. On the other hand, their adopted gender role can lead them to act out and to commit inappropriate behaviours, like pursuing sex in public places (e.g., toilets and parks).

Is it just me, or does that not make any sense at all? Ambi 08:40, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, it's not just you, the inappropriate behaviour and public places thing looks like vandalism to me. I wrote the 'denied the right-to-marry-sentence', but go ahead and change it as you like.--Fenice 08:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

...and thanks for writing the gay-lesbian section.--Fenice 08:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Don't thank me, thank User:Dysprosia :) Ambi 08:13, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well thanks Dysprosia and Whiskers --Fenice 10:56, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Long nails

Fenice, you removed the image of long nails that I uploaded. Why? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 15:41, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Because I don't quite see the relevance to the article - why did you add it? There are certainly pictures that are much more suitable for the article, for example something about soufragettes --Fenice 18:39, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Addition to Media subsection

I have added a section about the effects of gender roles on children in the media subsection of the Culture section. This addition adds to the media subsection by showing that gender stereotyping starts in young children and continues throughout their lives. Warmtones1 (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Addition of More General Information to Media Subsection

I am planning to add more general information about the effects of television media on gender role/stereotyping to the media subsection. This information includes the general trends seen in television shows and advertisements from 1930 to the early 2000s and how these trends have affected women and children. This information is being added to support the information that is already in the article and to add depth to this section of the article. Warmtones1 (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. Do you have information only on the United Kingdom, or about international trends? Dimadick (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Most of the sources I am using collect and analyze data from studies done in the United States, but a few of the sources have data from other countries as well. Thank you for your response. Warmtones1 (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Not comprehensive, possible POV

This article one-sidedly favours the view popular in the social sciences at the moment and ignores the research done in other fields to such a degree that this article should either be renamed "Views on gender roles in social sciences" or be deemed NPOV and reworked heavily. The entirety of the article presents only the view of the social sciences, and restricts the view from other fields to a single, small section. It then presents an unbalanced view of all other research, which stands in stark contrast to the what is written in the articles linked to by that section. These articles need to be aligned. As it stands, these articles directly contradict eachother in terms of the claims made about the current status of research on this topic - hence the NPOV tag. Help would be appreciated. - LilySophie (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@LilySophie: What fields outside of the social sciences address gender roles? The only thing I can think of is the bio-social approach, but even that a branch within social sciences. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I guess you answered the question yourself. :) The bio-social approach is given little to no space in this article, resulting in an imbalanced article considering the amount of writing and research from that perspective. - LilySophie (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, I should think that we would want our articles to be "deemed NPOV", in fact. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that, haha. I corrected it. - LilySophie (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

If it helps, where there are main articles linked to sections representing those main articles, the section should be a summary of the main article. See WP:SUMMARY. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Given that gender roles are socially constructed and are mainly talked about in that regard, and we have a "Biological factors" section in the article, I don't see the unbalanced article LilySophie speaks of. The "Biological factors" section and other parts of the article do, however, need cleanup and more can be added on some aspects. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Gender expression

Gender expression duplicates the content of gender role according to the statement in Gender role#Background

Gender role, which refers to the cultural expectations as understood by gender classification, is not the same thing as gender identity[contradictory], which refers to the internal sense of one's own gender, whether or not it aligns with categories offered by societal norms. The point at which these internalized gender identities become externalized into a set of expectations is the genesis of a gender role.

A redirect would be more suitable. Ethanpet113 (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Per the first reference in that article, gender expression covers clothing, which is not covered here completely. I haven't looked at other references in that article because they lack page numbers. wumbolo ^^^ 10:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Two different things. For starters, gender role is an abstract concept that exists only at the level of a society, whereas gender expression is a concrete, visible attribute of a single individual; so they are not at all the same thing, although they are related and interdependent.

In more detail, a gender role is a societal view held more or less in common by all members of a society in a given place and time, that describes (and proscribes) a set of expectations of appearance and behavior for individuals of each gender. No individual has a "gender role", although they may have behaviors or appearance that agree, or disagree, to a greater or lesser extent with the role expected of their gender in the society to which they belong.

Gender expression, on the other hand, belongs not to society, but to a single individual, and reflects how they express their own internal sense of gender to the outside world, by their (mostly) visible choices including appearance and behavior, and which may include clothing, hair length and style, body adornment, use of language, gesture, gait, choice of occupation or pastime, style of interpersonal relationships, hobby or music preferences, and many other factors. Their outward gender expression is (mostly) visible to others, who may or may not interpret it as intended based on their internalized view of gender roles they acquired from their own society. Individuals in a given society feel pressure to conform their gender expression to the expectations inherent in that society's gender roles, and may be labeled deviant or suffer consequences in an intolerant society if they don't. Mathglot (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• No (to a merger); as Mathglot says, these are two different things, generally distinguished by RS as far as I have seen. -sche (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't merge: A bit late to this discussion (not sure if it's still relevant? The banners are still up...) but Mathglot sums up my opinion more eloquently than I could. To add to it, if the distinction between the topics isn't clear from the articles we should improve them; they feel thin to me anyway considering the breadth of research into gender expression in the past few years. Trying to fuse them together would be very detrimental in the long run even if it seems to make sense on a surface level at the moment. ♦AcoriSage 00:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't merge. Though the articles as they are presetly duplocate some of the content, the concepts of "gender role" (expectations put on different genders by society) and "gender expression" (how an individual espresses their own gender) are distinct concepts. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 21:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

As there seems to be consensus against merging, I've removed the merge templates from the articles. Kaldari (talk) 08:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Opinion rather than fact

"Typically, women are concerned with caring for the family and the home while men are typically providing for the family. This ultimately portrays the man as a leader and the woman as the follower." The problem I have with this quote is the following: "This ultimately portrays the man as a leader and the woman as the follower", this is an opinion and not a fact. I could counter-argue towards this and say that if the female is the homemaker, therefore they are the leader of the household, not the follower. In my opinion this is an opinion and not a fact, it shouldn't be included regardless that it is "sourced". It doesn't benefit the article but rather pushes a Point-of-ViewMigboy123 (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

While that sentence is in the source, it's just from the part summarizing prior research - and the research it summarizes is from 1982 and 1960 (the paper itself is from 1988.) It's also a bit tangential to the main focus of the paper, which is on how many gender-stereotypes come from leader-follower associations. I've removed it for now... but really, the whole paragraph needs to be rewritten with better sources. (That is to say, papers that focus on the topic broadly, rather than pulling quotes from extremely specific studies of individual facets of the topic like this one.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding more information

In the section "Changing Gender Roles in Marriage", it is stated that the shift in gender roles have affected marriages, and it also provides the ways in which gender roles have shifted. However, this section does not discuss how the shift in gender roles have impacted marriages. I am going to add this essential information. KCLAY1006 (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I am planning on adding some different views from around the world about the changing gender roles. As of right now, the section "Changing Gender Roles" is mostly focusing on the USA, Canada, and Europe, but the roles are changing differently depending on the country. I am adding changing roles from different countries in Asia.There is a rough draft of the contribution in my sandbox! Purplelizard5 (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I just finished reading your rough draft in your sandbox, and it's great! Nice job! KCLAY1006 (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Issues with Gender stereotypes section

Gender role § Gender stereotypes have a few issues:

• It seems it focuses on studies in the United States, without clearly noting it. There may be a geographic imbalance.
• There are 7 paragraphs are about a single study from 1992 with a sample of 23 (Fagot, 1992). This looks like poor sourcing. WP:MEDRS guidelines might be useful here. Is there any systematic review published after that?
• There is no consistency in the section, it jumps back and forth chronologically.

Best, --MarioGom (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure about the biological factors section

None of the sources in that section are biology sources, a majority of them are sources from sociologists. I mean there aren’t even sociobiological sources in there. So there is a good chance none of the individuals in that section know what they are talking about.CycoMa (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I know sociobiology exist.CycoMa (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Primary image

Why is the first image on the page "Men and women in non-traditional gendered occupations"? That's confusing and the opposite of what it should be! The article should illustrate gender roles, not their opposite! 50.30.176.21 (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems weird. I skimmed the archives and it doesn't seem to have been decided on via consensus (though I did see one person claim it had been). Obviously, Wikipedia doesn't want to reinforce any harmful stereotypes, but come on, the article's literally about gender roles—making the main image specifically contradict them is absurd.

I think the most NPOV way to handle it, if we're going to have an image at all (it might be undesirable, for the same reason there aren't images for ethnic groups) would be to have a collage of images of people fitting their societies' gender roles, specifically chosen to be contradictory ("in culture A men do X, whereas in culture B it's women who do X").

Personally I lean towards no image at all—the current one adds nothing to the article except for identifying a few specific gender roles in a needlessly confusing fashion, and I doubt even a representative image would be of value. Obviously this is a NPOV minefield (not to say minefields are good or bad, as we here at Wikipedia are totally neutral on the subject :P). Hppavilion1 (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I find that an image showing non-confirmation to gender roles does a good job of illustrating what they are. By highlighting people in non-traditional gender roles it draws more attention to the article's topic than an image of people in traditional gender roles would. I'd say we keep it. Alternatively, we could replace it with an image that juxtaposes people in traditional gender roles against people in non-traditional gender roles, which would also make it clear. Either way, I believe that an image helps a lot in demonstrating the concept of gender roles and that it should not be simply removed.--Megaman en m (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with IP 50; there are plenty of articles where images of non-traditional gender roles could be, or are placed; this article should be one where traditional images are placed, at least at the top, to match the topic more closely, and set the standard from which non-traditional images further down may diverge. I see no problem with using the collage in a later section specifically on non-traditional roles. There isn't one like that now, but perhaps it could go in the section on #Politics and gender issues. But it makes no sense to start out the article on a topic called "Gender role" using an image that is not an example of typical gender roles. Mathglot (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: courtesy ping, as I believe you are the one that added the multi-image. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• This was part of a project I undertook for a few months to try to illustrate extremely generic topics with extremely high quality images. As generic topics go, like Famine or Poverty or Humour, there isn't ever going to be any image that satisfies everyone, nor any image that really truly encapsulates the topic. My principle concern was that the images be of high quality and as representative of the species as possible. Gender roles, like food, tend to be a subject of debate where they aren't and not where they are, where they tend to be mostly overlooked as business-as-usual. Thus the image choice. GMG^talk 19:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Gender role and John Money

There are two basic problems about the content in the article concerning John Money and gender role. It is true that Money coined the term, but the article fails to point out that John Money's original definition of gender role (given in this note) is not at all what we mean by the term gender role today. Money's definition had nothing to do with society's expectations for girls or boys; on the contrary, it was all about an individual's behavior. Money's definition describes essentially what we today call gender expression or presentation, with just a soupcon of sexual orientation thrown in. This is handled poorly in the #John Money section of the article.

Further, I'm not sure Money's 1955 definition belongs in the lead at all. If he had coined the term with the meaning it has today, then yes, very definitely. But due to the change in meaning, I fear that including it in the lead, will only mislead the reader, as I don't see a way to concisely summarize Money's definition, explain that that was about something else, and show how this is all relevant to the topic of the article, all in a brief, summarized form. In my opinion, it's better to simply leave a discussion of the evoution of the term to the #Terminology section, which I just now realized, the article doesn't even have. That would be the proper place to address the topic of the original coinage, and the shift in meaning.

Other, similar articles relegate coinage and shifts in meaning to the body; for example, the articles Transsexual and Transgender, do not discuss coinage and terminology in the lead. The article Gender identity does mention Stoller's coinage, but notably in this case, Stoller's 1964 definition is essentially the same one we use today. (All three articles have a #Terminology section; called differently in Gender identity.) In the case of gender role, there is certainly value discussing terminology and Money's 1955 coinage, but not in the lead, imho.

As a somewhat separate issue: the third paragraph of the #John Money section regarding Money's debunked theories of socialization of gender and the Reimer case, while true, seem entirely irrelevant here. Better just stick a {{Main}} link at the top of the section, and let interested readers discover that interesting, but mostly unrelated topic there. Mathglot (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing debate about whether gender role is socially constructed

Both the body of the article (with five references^{[6][7][8][9][10]}) and the lead, state something to the effect that "there is debate" about to what extent gender role is socially constructed. This is nonsense; there is no such debate. Regarding gender, yes; but not with respect to gender role. The lead states it this way:

There is ongoing debate as to what extent gender roles and their variations are biologically determined, and to what extent they are socially constructed.

None of the five references in the body make any such claim about gender role. The body appears to slide this assertion in by including both "gender and gender roles", but those are two vastly different things, and cannot be conflated. Gender role is socially constructed by definition: it is society's expectations about the expression or behavior of individuals of different genders. I don't know if the inclusion of this assertion about gender role was some kind of attempt to include an unsupported false balance, or perhaps just a basic misunderstanding of the distinction between (individual) gender and (societal) gender role; given the title and content of the five references, I suspect the latter. But there are no reliable sources that claim that "gender role" is anything but socially constructed. I will be removing that assertion with respect to gender role.

The same claim about gender is accurate, but I don't think it makes sense to attempt to excise only the part about role and leave the bit about gender with the two claims inextricably conflated the way they are. It would perhaps be better to just recreate a valid assertion about gender from scratch, if it makes sense in context to include it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I don’t know much about the sociology regarding this but I will say this.

Judging by the fact there is a biological section in general probably indicates even sociologists are aware there is some biological factors regarding gender roles.CycoMa (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

No offense, CycoMa, but this is wild, unsupported speculation, and doesn't belong here, per WP:NOTFORUM. I don't mean to be harsh, but your opinion (or mine) about what "sociologists are probably aware of" is simply irrelevant. Finally, basing anything on what sections this article contains is tautological, and also invalid per WP:WINARS. Please let's not have a debate about what Wikipedia editors believe about what sociologists probably think. Verifiability and sources are king; unsupported content gets removed. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

But that content is reliably sourced. And I believe it was Flyer22 who revised that section not long ago. I know that we respect her work. The old sentence in the lead was odd, but "Although research indicates that biology plays a role in gendered behavior, the extent of its effects on gender roles is less clear" seems fine. After all, human nature and physiological aspects like gestation will tend to influence what norms societies construct/evolve. That copies what was in the body. If changed, it should be keeping the source in mind. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The biology section could be improved. Currently the most referenced work there is "Gender Roles: A Sociological Perspective" (Lindsey 2015). Case almost closed. In addition actual research in that field is discussed with one publication from the 70's.

The section is fairly vague also, there is a sentence that says in a discrediting tone that there were methodological problems with the hormone related behavior studies in humans. There are methodological problems in every study ever done. Notice that the reference used to support that claim does also say that "evidence clearly shows that biological processes influence the ways in which boys and men come to be different than girls and women, and the variations among individuals of the same gender" and that the research in the area of biology/behavior area has developed into an entire sub-field since then. There are also apparently many studies of differences in behavior in animals, and even studies of injecting human sex hormones into animals and many more things that do also help to paint the complete picture of gender and behavior and to some degree this also probably affects social norms and expectations etc.128.214.174.220 (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Images

If the article discusses gender roles, then why specifically use images of people who are not participating in the subject of the article? Wouldn't it be more relevant to identify traditional gender roles? Parto19 (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pmorale4.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): StewartB.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Warmtones1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2019 and 9 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tutu426. Peer reviewers: Vahinishori.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2019 and 7 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Purplelizard5, KCLAY1006.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bailsnl.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 4 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Adrianaahidalgo. Peer reviewers: DVJ98.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 October 2021 and 14 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lgs11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead sentence in incomplete and must include time and place

A child, sewing. Boy, or girl?

The lead sentence is incomplete. Currently, it reads:

A gender role, also known as a sex role, is a social role encompassing a range of behaviors and attitudes that are generally considered acceptable, appropriate, or desirable for a person based on that person's sex.

This is incomplete. Expected behaviors for men and women (and boys and girls) vary a great deal at different times in the same place, or in different places at the same time. Both should be mentioned, as without time and place, it is impossible to say, for example, whether wearing a long curly hair style (or wig) is more associated with men or with women, or whether a young child with long hair with a bow wearing a pink dress and sewing, is a boy, or a girl. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Praise for the image collage in the lead

This is the first time that I've come to this article and I want to give some praise to the Wikipedia editors who set up the image collage in the lead. I think the images are spot on! Much better than showing people in their "conventional gender roles" (which could have been an alternative approach for this article). This image collage brings the points across very nicely. Well done and thank you! EMsmile (talk) 08:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"Gendered norms" redirect to here?

I sometimes come across the term "gendered norms" in the literature. There is no Wikipedia article for it. Would it make sense to redirect that term to this article? Or is there another article better suited for such a redirect? EMsmile (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Possibly; this chart shows relative usage in books, and this one searches for similar terms. I see a "gendered norm" as defining an expectation of acceptable or proper individual behavior, expression, action, or attitude in any one of many areas of human interaction in which the expectation is different depending on what gender one is. A few examples: leadership and management, health care (as a consumer), nurturing children, earning an income, personal grooming, waging war. Add together all the individual gendered norms for, say, "women" (tied to a given time and place) and you have society's gender role for women (for that time and place). So, unless there is something better targeted than "gender role", I would say that yes, this is the proper article.

Imho, the redirect should really be a section redirect to "Gender role#Norms" (or "Gender role#Cultural norms", or "#Societal norms", or similar). However, there isn't a specific section like that in the article, although the article does talk about "cultural norms", "religious norms", "societal norms" and so on scattered throughout. Maybe it could be added as an introductory paragraph somewhere, if you'd like to create one. Mathglot (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a subset of social norm and could probably be covered in that article. Dimadick (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Dimadick, I checked and the article on "social norm" does not yet have a section on gender. That's a pity. So I think for now the better solution would be to either just redirect to "gender norm" or (and this would be better but could be a longer term effort) to create a suitable sub-heading inside of "gender norm" where the redirect could point to? EMsmile (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I just found that "gender norm" (rather than "gendered norm") does redirect to "gender role" already (but not to a specific section either). So for now I'll create the same redirect for "gendered norm". EMsmile (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at UCSB supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2014 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 15:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

This is horrendously biased

Gender roles refer to social conflicts, and everything that involves social is always a subjective matter because any type of theory is never 100% right or 100% wrong, it's always in the middle.

When you have a theory about social issues, the theory will work in some people but not in others, which ends up making it subjective to the situation. As people usually say, there is not really a "normal" person in the world, because the definition of normal is focused in a very objective shape that is usually unobtainable.

Yet this page does not try to account for this as a social theory, but as an undisputed fact. There is no "the theory defines this, the theory states that", it is written in a way that implies its right with no doubt.

Trees being green is right, and even then trees being green is wrong when autumn comes. If nature itself does not define reality in an abstract matter, imagine a bunch of primates in 2000 earth transitions discussing some issue that happened some transitions ago. Reality is not an abstract and consistent concept, reality always change.

So, please, not only on this, but on many more. Do not become factual, because none of us ever is. We're not gods, we're mortals. We don't hold the truth in our hands, all we can say is "at this point, we believe this is the right thing". But no matter the time, it never is.

Just leaving the suggestion to state that this is a theory that speculates a repetitive behavior in the world, and not that this is the undeniable truth. And it DOES indirectly state that it's the undeniable truth, by being spoken in an authoritarian way. "babies will learn their gender at age 3" instead of "the theory states that babies will do this x thing". 186.143.202.100 (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

You may be interested in this essay. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Useight (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Removing "sex" from lead

See discussion at Talk:Gender#Gender role article dicussion regarding recent edits. [1] Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Concur. Mathglot (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The source recently added [2] by Crossroads as support for the use of the sex article appears to be contradicted by the source. This use of the source does not appear to account for what the source states in context and how it provides support for the use of gender instead of sex.

This source helps show how the use of the term "sex" by a source should not automatically be assumed to support a link to the sex article in the way that this article currently links to it. The current sources and the OED source I attempted to add to this article seem to add further support for the use of the gender article. This also relates to the "problems of terminology" further discussed at the discussion noted above. Beccaynr (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The source I added literally says "sex" and is very much aware of the difference between sex and gender, discussing that exact matter. Right after that it states, Gender roles, therefore, are the expected attitudes and behaviors a society associates with each sex. It could not possibly be any more specific. Defining gender roles in terms of gender is circular and meaningless. You appear to be reading WP:Original research into that source. As for the OED, I have no idea what this supposed to prove; it does not support your definition and its many-decades-old quotes clearly carry less weight than much newer sources in any case. As for the pre-existing sources, one of them defines it as The social roles, behaviors, attitudes, and psychological characteristics that are more common, more expected, or more accepted for one sex or the other. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

At page 4 of the source, it states, "Gender can be viewed on a continuum of characteristics demonstrated by a person regardless of the person's biological sex." At page 5: "When the sociological concept of role is combined with the biological concept of sex, there is often misunderstanding about what content areas are subsumed under the resultant sex role label. Usage has become standardized, however, and most sociologists now employ gender role rather than sex role in their writing."

The OED also appears to make a distinction in its example of usages of "gender role", which includes "...even if it runs counter to the physical sex of the subject."

One of the sources currently used in the gender role article after the line in the lead with the link to sex defines gender role as "patterns of behavior, attitudes, and personality attributes that are traditionally considered in a particular culture to be feminine or masculine." The other source for that sentence provides a capsule definition without accessible context to support the link to the sex article, particularly in the context of other sources and especially the contents of the gender role article.

I also think it is important to assess the article as a whole and how the article itself does not support linking to a general article about biology for an article about this sociological concept.

It also does not appear to be circular to explain gender role with reference to gender, because gender roles are a part of gender. It also seems to be an unrepresentative reflection of the sources and the article as well as potentially confusing to send readers to a biology article, contrary to how sources are discussing gender and gender roles. Beccaynr (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The page 4 quote is about individual persons, not the concept as a whole. The page 5 quote is about the term "sex role", which is a separate matter. None of this negates the source's clear explicit statements. The OED quote demonstrating usage is from 1963 and is obviously outdated, claiming that "gender role" is "learned by the age of two years [and] is for most individuals almost irreversible". This tells us nothing about modern usage; see WP:RS AGE.

That other source in the lead is just one among several and does not contradict that such constructs are based ultimately on roles/attributes intended for particular sexes. Humans are both biological and social beings and as such, it is not surprising that social roles were built on top of pre-existing biological differences rather than arbitrarily.

Circularity is still an issue because you opposed mentioning sex in defining gender as well, which currently relies on gender roles in its definition. NPOV has to do with RS, and they very clearly do define it this way. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not think it is particularly helpful for us to have essentially the same discussion at two articles. Nevertheless, the book is about the concept, and "gender" is discussed as a concept by the book, including at pp. 4-5, and I have highlighted that section because it speaks to the terminology confusion that can exist and appears to exist when the lead doesn't reflect the body of an article. In both gender role and woman, there appear to be similar WP:NPOV issues related to the use of the sex-related articles that do not appear supported by the contents of the article and sources, contrary to MOS:LEAD.

And if you are going to represent things I have previously said, as always, please cite a diff so I can directly respond. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Crossroads, re: your removal of sources supporting the clarification to the lead [3] - I would appreciate it if you would restore this - I did attempt to clarify the preponderance of sources with the addition of sources and content about why 'gender roles' refers to 'gender' and not the wikilinked sex article, e.g. [4]. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

This bit about "gender role" vs. "sex role" doesn't tell us how to define the topic. The existing sources support "sex"; adding a source that supports "gender" isn't enough to replace the former with the latter. It needs to be based on the due weight of the body of sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a sociological/sociocultural concept, and the sociological source speaks to the 'confusion' in the terminology - and it seems apparent, including based on the other sources I added from the WHO and the book that was removed, that the wikilinked sex article is not supported. Basically, just because the word 'sex' may be used by a source, it does not translate into clear support for the sex wikilink. We have discussed these concepts and sources for awhile across various articles, including Gender, and the recent consensus update to Gender seems to help further clarify how this is the most apprpriate article to link to. And as background to how this change happened - I had seen a change made to the lead, reverted, and then went ahead with adding sources to help support a clarification; my hope now is that after the extensive discussions, the sources I attempted to add, the clarifying text added to this article, and the revision to the lead of the gender article, that the link to gender is more clearly supported. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Your edit is not a clarification; it's an NPOV violation. The WHO source doesn't even mention gender roles. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The WHO source refers to roles in its discussion of gender. And I am concerned that not accounting for sources explain how this sociological concept is understood to be related to gender, not sex, is an WP:NPOV problem - that is what I am trying to address. Beccaynr (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

This 'sex doesn't mean sex' argument IIRC was made above and did not gain consensus. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I added the sources and adjusted the article to make the terminology more clear, and I think the article should reflect this, with the RS I added restored. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• You've repeatedly referred to previous discussions; can you link to them? I searched extensively and could find no discussion of Lindsey at all. While it is possible I may have missed something, I do not believe there is an affirmative consensus for "sex" in the sentence in question, and am asking that you avoid asserting so until / unless you can point to the specific discussion where that consensus was reached in order to avoid inadvertently misrepresenting the current consensus. Certainly it looks, to me, to be weakly-sourced (a single source whose use in this context has clear issues I detail below), so I'm skeptical that it could have obtained a strong consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think Lindsey is a good source for this. The key point here is that Lindsey is specifically not using sex in the way it is frequently used today (ie. sex assigned at birth), saying:

Extended quote; emphasis mine

This relatively simple distinction masks a number of problems associated with its usage. It implies that all people can be conveniently placed into unambiguous either-or categories. Certainly the ascribed status of sex is less likely to be altered than the achieved status of gender. Some people believe, however, that they were born with the "wrong" body and are willing to undergo major surgery to make their gender identity consistent with their biological sex. ... These issues will be addressed fully in Chapters 2 and 3, but are mentioned here to highlight the problems of terminology. From a sociological perspective, this text is concerned with gender and how it is learned, how it changes over time, and how it varies between and within cultures. Gender can be viewed on a continuum of characteristics demonstrated by a person regardless of the person's biological sex. Adding the concept of role to either sex or gender may increase confusion in terminology. When the sociological concept of role is combined with the biological concept of sex, there is often misunderstanding about what content areas are subsumed under the resultant sex role label. Usage has become standardized, however, and most sociologists now employ gender role rather than sex role in their writing. Gender roles, therefore, are the expected attitudes and behaviors a society associates with each sex. This definition places gender squarely in the sociocultural context.

By my reading this means she is saying that gender roles subsume both sex and gender (and that when she says "sex", she means an attribute which she notes can be changed by surgery; in 2023, that isn't necessarily how all readers will interpret the sex / gender divide, which makes it a misuse of the source if it's used in a way that will lead readers to that misinterpretation.) This vital context is occluded in the current lead. While she uses the word "sex", yes, the larger context makes it clear she's talking about someone's presentation. And seems to me to be particularly bizarre to rely on Lindsey (who notes that the terminology is complex) to justify an excessively simplistic usage of terminology that completely ignores Lavigne (a source that was removed with no valid justification that I can see? Even if there was a prior consensus - which I see no evidence of - it would not preclude adding new sources and updating the text to reflect them.) Lavigne unambiguously says that gender roles are about gender; the thing to do when we have sources that disagree is to parse them carefully to be sure we understand what they're saying, to determine which is best and to figure out a wording that accurately reflects all of them. If there is a disagreement between them, then we need to represent it properly. (As a note, Lindsey's "usage has become standardized" aside also makes me suspect that the way she uses sex / gender terminology is not mainstream, ie. she's basically saying that everyone else should use the terms like X while bemoaning the fact that they use them like Y - which is essentially saying that her views are a minority. Minority views can still be represented, but that makes it inappropriate to rely on her to the exclusion of sources that contradict her usage.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

This whole multi-month discussion is kinda ridiculous. Sex is correct here and whether it's being used in the prescriptive sense à la West and Zimmerman or the common sex-gender indistinct, it doesn't really matter. It would be incumbent on Becca to show gender is the predominant term when describing sex roles/gender roles (which it's not). EvergreenFir (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, I have been reviewing scholarly literature related to this complex topic for months, and have linked various examples in my comment below - I have approached this topic area as a learner and with guidance from WP:NPOV policy. From my view, there appears to be a theme in scholarly sources, and today another example of how some aspects of what has classically been referred to as 'sex' seems to now be more clearly understood as 'gender' was brought to my attention by a NYT Opinion article: Ancient Judaism Recognized a Range of Genders. It’s Time We Did, Too. (Elliot Kukla, Mar. 18, 2023), which led me to this: Gender and Jewish Studies.

My sense is there likely is a way to add content about the nuance in the terminology (e.g. "The terms sex roles and gender roles often are used interchangeably..." in "Sex Roles and Gender Roles" Encyclopedia of Adolescence, 2014, Roger J. R. Levesque, pp 2622–2623); e.g. "Gender Identity and Sex Roles" Handbook of Social Development, 1992, Marion O’Brien, p. 325 "A gender role or sex role is a set of attitudes and a behavioral repertoire associated by cultural convention with being male or female. Here the categories become blurred. ..."; e.g. a 1983 source by Anne R. Edwards: "Sex Roles: a Problem for Sociology and for Women" Journal of Sociology, 19(3) fn1: "A distinction between sex (biology) and gender (culture) has become widely accepted as a useful analytical one. Roles may therefore be based on sex or gender and women's roles described accordingly as 'female' or 'feminine' respectively. However, many writers on 'sex roles' ignore this categorisation and persist in using 'sex' to denote the social roles of men and women even where such roles are unmistakeably gender-based."; e.g. Gender Roles and Society Amy M. Blackstone, 2003, Human Ecology: An Encyclopedia of Children, Families, Communities, and Environments, edited by Julia R. Miller, Richard M. Lerner, and Lawrence B. Schiamberg. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. ISBN I-57607-852-3, p. 335: "Understanding the term "gender roles" requires an understanding of the term "gender." "Gender" is a social term that is often confused with the term "sex" [...]. Gender [...] refers to the meanings, values, and characteristics that people ascribe to different sexes") but as I note below, my capacity to continue engaging in the type of discussion that has occurred across multiple related articles (and AfDs, e.g. 1, 2) is limited for the foreseeable future.

I have tried to discuss sources in detail, and encouraged in-depth review - these are contentious terms, so it seems helpful to focus on academic sources and to be wary of a superficial use of the terminology, in part because of where the term 'sex' links on Wikipedia - without (from my view) apparent substantial support in sources that also use the term. As a potentially-related note, an attempt to add a distinction in the sex article, e.g. [5] was reverted by Crossroads [6], the female article has a clarification about human gender, and there is somewhat-related discussion on that article's Talk page. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• I apologize for not being clear about the previous discussions and research I was referring to. These discussions include the extensive discussion on Talk:Gender, including the research in the Talk:Gender#Broad concept article approach section, as well as the consensus developed to adjust the first sentence of the lead at Talk:Gender#Yet another, another suggestion. There has also been discussion at Talk:Woman#WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD that seems relevant, and somewhat relatedly Draft talk:Female (gender)/Archive 2#Nature of this page. From my view, the academic literature seems to make the use of the wikilinked sex article problematic, and makes the use of gender a more clear choice with regard to the concept that gender roles references. Based on the research I have conducted, my concern is about readers being pointed to the sex article, when the sociological literature does not appear to support this - those with a background in sociology can grok how the terminology can be used interchangeably to signify what we refer to as gender, but we are not writing for experts.

Also, another source removed by Crossroads is Worthy, L D; Lavigne, T; Romero, F (July 27, 2020). "Stereotypes and Gender Roles". Culture and Psychology. MMOER. Retrieved 6 March 2023. Gender roles refer to the role or behaviors learned by a person as appropriate to their gender and are determined by the dominant cultural norms.. In any event, I am mostly on wikibreak for a bit due to health issues, so I am not going to have much energy or focus for the type of discussions that have previously happened at Talk:Gender, Talk:Woman, or Draft talk:Female (gender). All I can really do for now is offer my research from the past months in this complex topic area. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The sources state that gender roles are defined based on expectations related to sex. I cited these in this discussion: [7] Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The opening paragraph says that gender roles are a cultural thing. This can be understood that they have nothing to do with a biological difference. However later in the article it stated that the difference is also biological however not in the assumed extent. So it seems like the opening definition is not an accurate description of what this is Rashba (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)