Talk:Gender identity/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Deletion of large amounts of content

Leadwind has deleted a large amount of content from the article, most of it marked uncited since October. Perhaps this should be discussed to see if any of it merits restoration. Kaldari (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyone? We're talking about 6 paragraphs of content. Kaldari (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but material needs to be sourced, especially if someone tags it. Feel free to restore any material for which you can find a reliable source. Leadwind (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I'm just surprised no one cares. Kaldari (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

While I want to be clear that I'm all for LGBT rights and respect, and I agree that WP is a good place to share positive information, I have to agree with whoever put the "needs verification" tag on the page. A lot of this material sounds right but just doesn't have any RSs to back it up. Leadwind (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit, restored previously deleted information in gender identity below the surface due to misreading.

Neurobiology

I have removed the section on neurobiology as it was not really related to the topic of gender identity. The very definition of gender is opposed to the definition of sex in that the latter is biological (at least to some extent) and the first is socially constructed. The concept of gender identity is specifically not linked to neurobiology because it refers to the way in which individuals use gender categories as the basis of forming a social identity. I suggest that the material I removed is inserted into our article on Sex differences in humans.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Fancy meeting you here, Maunus! Tell me, was David Reimer's gender identity entirely socially constructed? Or might it have had at least some biological component? Who says that "the way in which individuals use gender categories as the basis of forming a social identity"..."is specifically not linked to neurobiology"? John Money did, but who else? Leadwind (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Leadwind, I will quote Walther Sobchek here: "you are out of your element". You've reads some misguided crap about John Money and David Reimer which is somehow preventing you from understanding both the difference between sex and gender and what evolutionary psychology is an isn't. Also you apparently haven't really read the changes I made to the lead - I do not say that biology does not influence gender identification - I am saying that nobody knows if it does and how. About gender identity: The word "gender" is defined to mean only the socially constructed part of the male/female divide. The biological part of that divide is referred to as "sex". Gender identity by definition cannot be biologically determined because it is the culture that one lives in that determines which gender categories are available and how they are constructed (for example you cannot be biologically determined to be a hijra if your society does not have such a category)- but the choice of identification with a particular gender category within a society is definitely influenced by sex and by biological variables. Start by reading your faourite encyclopedia (the britannica)'s entry on gender identity and you may become a little less confused about what gender and identity is and isn't. And yes David Reimer's gender identity was every bit as socially constructed as everyone elses - perhaps even a bit more seeing that his identity was basically the result of a combination unfortunate social circumstances. Now did his biological predispositions play a role in the fact that he changed the assigned identification when he was old enough to do so? Yes it very likely did. I also personally believe that there is probably biological causes behind the fact that many people feel uncomfortable with the particular gender that they are socialized into. This does not make gender identities less socially constructed. Identity is social by necessity. It makes no sense to have an identity that is not socially constructed. The only way to get an identity is to construct it in relation to other human beings - that is socially. A person who has never socialized with humans, may have a personality, but not an identity. You really need to try harder to understand the stuff you disagree with. And you definitely need to social sciences and what goes on in those field a lot better in order to be able to make meaningful contributions to this topic.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

So now you're saying that the way in which individuals use gender categories as the basis of forming a social identity is in fact linked to neurobiology, but you just don't want to mention it on this page? Leadwind (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I can always trust you to twist and misrepresent any argument with which you are presented. Your neurobiology data is a primary source, it is not linked specifically to gender dysphoria and it does gives several kilos of undue weight to a viewpoint a coupple of studies that have not gained any wide currency. Furthermore its poorly written (uses neurological jargon that I don't even think you understand yourself - and the lay reader much less) and it isn't even explicit about what the significance to the topic of gender identity is. The reason that the page cannot go into detail about the ways in which gender identity may or may not be related to neurobiology is that it that research represents a minuscule part of the reserach on gender identity which, I regret to inform you, is almost exlcusively conducted within the framework of what you probably think of as the "standard social science model" (which is of course why they call it "standard").·Maunus·ƛ· 14:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the material. I wasn't sure where to put it. You mentioned Britannica earlier. I'm happy to incorporate whatever Britannica says into the page even if it doesn't match my own views. I'd rather a page have cited information that I don't agree with than uncited information that I do agree with. That's WP policy. Would you care to add citations from Britannica, or should I? Leadwind (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how much of the conflict in this section was caused by the way gender identity is often meant in the same as sexual identity in relation to the person's self-concept of sex.

Anyway, the section in question seems at least slightly redundant, and makes no use of the article below which is well-sourced (though perhaps Maunus would disagree with the weight the article puts on the 2 major subjects):

Causes of transsexualism

--Cornince (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I honestly am not even going to look at that article.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is this supposed to be a statement that you disapprove of the article? Please clarify. I think its subject matter is relevant to the section that was discussed here, "Neurobiology." If you think there may be problems with the article, I ask that you state your objections. --Cornince (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't dissaprove of the article, but the research into causes of sexual orientation is not something that I am interested in knowing about, anymore than research into the causes of red hair. If some of the material there is relevant to the article on gender identity, i.e. if it explicitly relates to gender identity please feel free to include it.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

IP's comment moved down, out of older comments, to avoid confusion concerning the comments that followed it (not everyone checks, or always thinks to look at, the timestamps). The IP's comment is addressed to Maunus. I will alert Maunus to the comment. Flyer22 (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I realize this debate is over a year old. But if I understand the semantics of your argument correctly, you are stating that there is the physical and biological phenomenon known as "sex", which we understand to be related to two typical chromosomal categories and two named categories, intersexed and neuter, to complete the power set, and that there are socially constructed roles, which you are calling "gender" and "gender identities", which are culturally dependent and typically model the biological phenomenon. If I understand that much, it seems like you've still neatly avoided directly addressing Leadwind's point. Which is, that there is a phenomenon which you've both agreed existed in the case of David Reimer, which caused him to reject his socially constructed role, and which was based in part on a phenomenon that can't be labelled within the namespace you've created at all. Herein lies the problem. We understand biologically that sex chromosomes control hormonal regulation. We also know that things such as testicles, which David lacked, are necessary to produce many androus hormones. Therefore, we know that our current model of sex, especially with regard to hormones, had a limited potential effect on whatever it is about David that caused him not to take to his socially constructed role. Working the other direction, we know that his socially constructed role did not cause David to produce enough estrogen or otherwise change his biology enough to be consistent with it. In other words, there is some sort of thing, which we can't call either "sex" or "gender" (or even "gender identity"), which is neither a construct of sex as we understand and model it scientifically, or socially constructed gender roles (or "gender identities" as you've called them) as we understand them. What this means is that the above paragraph is, respectfully, a transparent dodge. You have attempted to refute an argument by obfuscating it with language that simply does not have a symbol set describing the concept you find abhorrent. Or, to put this another way, you and Humpty Dumpty can define terms to coincide with your argument until the cows come home. But whether you call it a Jabberwocky or a Dragon, it doesn't change the beast itself. Now it's true that you can't "be a girl" without some concept of "girl", and I agree with you wholeheartedly that that concept is indeed at least partially socially constructed. It's also partly biologically constructed. The point I believe you are avoiding addressing, is that whatever "girl" is, it is persistent. It has been assailed by both biology and society, and survived, enough times and in enough studies to be a statistically significant and scientifically reproduceable very real thing. It is not, in other words, a pure social construction, any more than "frog" and "tadpole" are constructed by the people that chose those labels. My motivation in posting this a year later is not merely to be as snide as yourself, although I am not going to be shy about the fact that it has been a pleasure indulging myself. I would simply like to see topics such as neurobiology and our current scientific understanding of its relation to gender, addressed with candor and the spirit of encyclopedists, in this article. Whether you agree with it or not should be the last thing on your mind as a wikipedia editor. It exists, it relates to the article, it should be documented, and some time in the future at some university, some student is going to hate your guts for making him or her (or whatever gender labels exist by then)... for forcing them to concoct original research because you have decided that the well funded and peer reviewed literature of today simply did not belong in your little revisionist history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2002:AD16:23AB:0:8A9F:FAFF:FE47:1850 (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Buddy try not to be so verbose. You can convey a message better with a few pithy sentences than a furious canto. -Onlooker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.230.124 (talk) 09:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: Maunus's response to being alerted to the new comment. Flyer22 (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Please clarify

(Undid revision 516830490 by Georgia guy (talk) - reverting good faith edit - that's the way the research finding is phrased; also, it is a mistake to categorize trans women as simply "female")

Does this mean trans women are a "third gender" as opposed to being a kind of woman?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

No, although there are some reasonable arguments that given the neurobiology underlying some types of transsexual women, they comprise a "third gender", as opposed to simply being males with feminized brains? For example, see Savic & Arver - "Sex Dimorphism of the Brain in Male-to-Female Transsexuals".

The core problem with your edit is that trans women aren't "female": they don't carry eggs, or bear young.

BTW, as it happens, I loathe all the "third gender" crapola that pomo queer theorists inflict on trans women's identities. This is an area where "gender politics", or perhaps I should say "anti-gender politics", overrides what's known from anthropology about trans women in different cultures: they identify as women, and in general seek to live as women by the norms of their culture… as much as their culture permits.

thanks, - bonze blayk (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean, trans women are not women?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Gee, I would say that the majority of trans, and particularly transsexual women, are psychologically very much like women and should be regarded as such… but on the other hand, no trans woman is "female": we are not born with ovaries, and thus do naturally have the potential to bear children?

That's what a "female" is; it's a term from biology, not psychology or sociology: a female is an egg-bearing animal.

thanks, - bonze blayk (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Amazing bias

I understand the difference between "gender" and "sex," I understand the difference between "biology" and "social constructs." But this entire article is based on the idea that biology has no effect on these "social constructs." There are some who disagree with this idea, believing that genes actually affect the development of characteristics of "gender." Why not have simply a few sentences explaining this view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMBTC (talk • contribs) 01:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course they do, we are biological beings, not socially constructed ones.2.103.197.76 (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Please, find some good reliable sources and write a few sentences about this! Lova Falk talk 18:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a whole anti-John Money backlash movement, of people who were subjected to surgical manipulations by Money or his followers as infants or children, and who feel that it basically ruined their lives or childhoods... AnonMoos (talk) 01:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

P.S. According to the New York Times obituary, Money was the one who coined the phrase "gender identity", and: AnonMoos (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Doctors today are far more wary of trying to re-engineer biology in this way, particularly in rare cases of badly damaged genitals, when the genetic sex is clear. Recent studies have emphasized the importance of prenatal exposure to hormones in shaping sexual identity.

Please fix this statement

Gender identity disorder is defined by strong, persistent feelings of identification with the opposite gender and discomfort with one's own assigned sex.[16] The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (302.85) has five criteria that must be met before a diagnosis of gender identity disorder can be made.

The phrase "opposite gender" in this statement implies that trans women are really men. Please fix it. Georgia guy (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Georgia guy. I changed it. However, I don't view the use of gender in the aforementioned line the same way you do; I don't because the text can mean the gender the person was raised as, or still publicly identifies by, as opposed to their internal gender identity. After all, the text/source also uses "own assigned sex." And remember to be WP:BOLD. Flyer22 (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

That stated, your issue with the previous wording is valid because it can be interpreted the way you concluded. Flyer22 (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"Xanith"

The "X" in this form uses a semi-strange transliteration of Arabic; the "Xanith" article was redirected to Khanith long ago... AnonMoos (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If you search published books (in Google Books search engine) you'll see that the X-form is commoner in English texts. 86.159.197.174 (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate citations and cited Encyclopedia Brittanica article is unsourced. (Actually, further problems as well.)

Citations 4 and 5 are the same source. The ISBN list should be merged, and one should be deleted. Further, citation 2 is an Encyclopedia Britannica article with an empty bibliography. This is not a reliable source. Citations 3 and 4 are also potentially irrelevant, because the statement cited is essentially the same wording as what is said in Encyclopedia Britannica. Further, this Wikipedia page lists a source that contradicts this claim: Gender_identity_disorder_in_children#cite_note-3 24.128.48.50 (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It is worth noting that this article contradicts itself multiple times and seems to be deeply flawed. 24.128.48.50 (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

In The DSM - revise for better clarity?

Hello,

Looking at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity#In_the_DSM, even as a short piece little section it would have more clarity and serve the purpose of the page if:

- It began with a summary of the definition of Gender Identity Disorder in the current DSM (DSM-5), especially if it differs from the DSM-IV treatment of Gender Identity.

- Followed by the DSM-III and DSM-III-R historical information on their treatment of Gender Identity Disorder

- And the controversy, (if included), ought to be clearly in a section of its own.

I was wondering why the current edition of the DSM isn't referenced.

CJBre (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No one got around to adding it. Flyer22 (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

New Addition to the Biological Factors Section

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I wanted to edit the page under Biological Factors in the Influencing Factors section. I thought to further validate the claim for the argument of biological variables having an impact on gender identity and behavior independent of socialization, as stated in the article.I would like to add the following sentence to the third paragraph before the last sentence. I feel that this would give a more specific example of a case that supports the claims in the paragraph.Suggestions are welcome.

Similarly David Reimer was born male but after a botched circumcision went through reassignment surgery to become female. Though he always felt like a male and eventually reverted back to his original sex. Nolen-Hoeksema (2014). Abnormal Psychology (6e ed.). McGraw-Hill. p. 368. ISBN 9781308211503. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

Thanks LizzyIshola (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Funny Thing

It's curious how nowhere in this article you can find a single criticism of this fraud of "Gender Theory", and the real history behind it's creation by Marxists to undermine traditional values and culture using Antonio Gramsci's subversion strategy. But hey this is Wikipedia, a heaven for Far-Left quackery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.155.8.79 (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

While it seems possible that there is bias in some of the editing on this article, and your point about alternate views being included may well be valid, your statement is not helping much as it is clear you are biased yourself, and happy to conclude that anything contradicting your own world view must be a conspiracy over which you can whack a convenient and disrespectful label, rather than offer some form of verifiable source in support of your opinion. Unless, of course, the entire world is 'a heaven for Far-Left quackery' and so no such source can be found. Wikipedia is a user edited encyclopedia, so it's expected that not all articles are entirely clean of bias, but that's why anyone can edit. 188.222.156.36 (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Sources contradicting each other

Having read a number of the sources for this article, sources which contradict each other are being selectively used to state concepts as facts, biased towards a single viewpoint. For example, in the section Biological Factors, one statement reads:

" It is a common mistake when people assume a Y chromosome makes a person a boy or a man and the lack of a Y chromosome makes a person a girl or a woman."

which is sourced from http://www.isna.org/faq/y_chromosome

However, in the same section, another source is used to support a different point, despite the fact that the source used for that section also clearly states "Girls' true gender is determined genetically rather than anatomically." which directly contradicts the previous source, since the X/Y chromosomes are the determining genetic factor.

So, either one or both sources are not reliable, or the subject itself is not clearly defined.

This pattern is repeated in several places in the article, yet much of the tone of the article states various points as absolute fact. Either way, some of the article is most certainly not encyclopedic, and I suspect many editors involved are biased in their understanding of the subject matter, although I have no doubt they are editing in good faith. 188.222.156.36 (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The opening sentence "Gender identity is a person's objective experience of their own gender." is inherently wrong. Nothing is more subjective than one's own experience. I have rewritten the sentence as follows: "Gender identity is one's personal experience of one's own gender." Avocats (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Error in defining Freud as Psychologist

Freud was not a psychologist, he was a psychiatrist who developed psychoanalysis. While some of Freud´s theories are applied within psychology, they are in fact very different from each other (see here).Alternatively you can look up several history of psychology books such as Fancher´s Pioneers of Psychology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:2580:2480:FCA0:1E2:EAFD:5D31 (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Latest definition in the lead

-sche, regarding this edit you made, you removed the following: "This is generally described as one's private sense of being a man or a woman, consisting primarily of the acceptance of membership into a category of people: male or female."

Why remove that, given that it's clear language and given that the vast majority of the world adheres to the gender binary? While more and more people are falling into the genderqueer category, it is not typical for people to identify as neither male/man nor female/woman. Furthermore, the lead already noted the gender binary and that not all people or all societies adhere to it, so it's not like it was neglecting that aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

On another note: I don't like the "and in most Western societies, there exists a gender binary" wording since it implies that most of the rest of the world doesn't adhere to the gender binary...which is not true. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

If the line "This is generally described as one's private sense of being a man or a woman" was intended to say that most people identify as a man or woman, then it needs to be reworded to say that. As it is, it reads like a claim that "gender identity" means "sense of being a man or a woman" — as if a sense of being e.g. third-gender or gender-free could not be described as a gender identity. What do you think of this? -sche (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with that change. We don't have to explicitly state what the gender binary is, since we get across the point without that, and since the gender binary is common knowledge (even in the case of the many people don't use the term gender binary), and since we link to it. But I was wondering why you removed the explicit mention, and why we shouldn't simply be explicit about it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Since the wording used generally, though, I didn't view it as stating "a sense of being e.g. third-gender or gender-free could not be described as a gender identity," especially considering that the lead addressed the topic of non-binary gender identity after that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

One physician's anecdote

I have removed the following from the article because one physician's (kinda pov-y, "really a man") anecdote about an intersex person does not seem significant enough to include per WP:WEIGHT:

One physician educator had the challenging experience of trying to calm a 23-year-old patient who had just been told by a resident that she was “really a man” because the resident had diagnosed the patient as having a Y chromosome and complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS).

"Intersex Society of North America".

-sche (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Identity work, career changes

The entire section on 'identity work' seems out-of-place, off-topic. Before I copyedit it: does it belong in this article? (It doesn't seem to belong where it is now, in the midst of information about early-childhood factors that may influence gender identity formation.) -sche (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the off-topic section from the article. This is it: -sche (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

Studies have deemed identity work successful if individuals manage to craft identities that sustain their self-esteem and grant them social validation in their roles. One area where gendered identity work is prevalent is in career transitions. Identity work is gendered during a work transition in three ways. These ways are, the culturally available master narrative of career change are heroic stories, some interviewees adopt gendered identity positioning in accounting for the need to change careers, and identity work results in struggles between conflicting identity positions that may be gendered. By heroic stories, it is meant that position as a career changer serves identity work in legitimizing unwanted career problems and strengthening identity, whether a change is made or not. This means that talk about career change is a way of moving from a victim position and adopting a temporary position as an active and heroic career actor. Adopting gendered identity positioning to account for the need of a career change can happen when the reason for not being able to feel authentic at work may be due to gender. The role of gender in the timing of the transition also applies to life renewal narratives, where the transition is explained by changes in personal life. In these cases, the narrator has been content with a past career but the need for career development has emerged due to a divorce, age crisis, or children growing up. Finally, the struggle between conflicting identity positions may invoke negotiation between an identity position in which one has been place and a newly desired one or between two desired but incompatible positions. An example of this would be becoming a student at an older age in order to become self-sufficient but while in school you are at the mercy of your spouse financially. These are two conflicting identities but can sometimes account for the transition that also fuels an identity struggle. This struggle results from differing concepts of a good career and life that the identity positions encompass When learning about the social construction of gender identity work, it is important though to remember that “the way in which identity work can be done and how it’s resources are gendered is dependent on the particular cultural context.” This means that it is necessary to take in the cultural context of the individual when studying or looking at gender identity work.

Defining Gender Identity by being Sexist?

"All societies have a set of gender categories that can serve as the basis of the formation of a person's social identity in relation to other members of society.[2] In most societies, there is a basic division between gender attributes assigned to males and females"

So saying things like you throw like a girl, can be used to identify your gender (as in externally deciding how u think) but considered sexist. So they would be sexist biases. So some lesbians would be classed as male by this process even tho they know they are female.--Thelawlollol (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Stereotypical gender-specific toys and games

"They believe that stereotypical gender-specific toys and games will encourage children to behave in their traditional gender roles.[60]"

More proof that females and males are different as shown with toy choosing with apes and monkeys! But this is a sexist claim that males and females are different!--Thelawlollol (talk) 10:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Language and gender identity

I want to recommend removing or re-editing a section under 'Nature vs. Nurture'. The second paragraph states that : ″Language also plays a role: children, while learning a language, learn to separate masculine and feminine characteristics and unconsciously adjust their own behaviour to these predetermined roles″, and provides a reference to Williams, Michael, "Cultural Identity, Language Identity, Gender Identity", "The English Academy of South Africa", 2011. Firstly this Journal deals primarily with literary issues for creative writing and book reviews, and as such is not a suitable source for psychological/sociological behaviour. Secondly the citation doesn't adequately support or provide evidence for the claims made, I believe this is the relevant section:

"Gender stereotyping is of course very widely practiced, even if the actual stereotypes vary from culture to culture. And, as Adegoju argues, language plays a key part in the process. ‘The relationship between language and gender has largely reflected how linguistic practices, among other kinds of practices, are used in the construction of social identities relating to issues of masculinity and femininity’"

This seems to me to just be asserting someones opinion, and as they are not an expert in psychology/sociology or gender identity issues, their opinion carries no weight and should be removed or a better citation should be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bone Soup (talk • contribs) 01:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Present views

"The 21st century's generation commonly accepts boys openly playing with and dressing in things normally considered to be for girls. Children are often allowed to be in the "middle space” between traditional boyhood and traditional girlhood, with activities and toys from all across the gender spectrum."

This line (which btw lacks sources) should specify in what country this is true, because in my country (Italy) it's absolutely not. --93.33.165.37 (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Removed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gender identity. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101122035344/http://www.yogyakartaprinciples.org:80/yogyakarta-principles-jurisprudential-annotations.pdf to http://www.yogyakartaprinciples.org/yogyakarta-principles-jurisprudential-annotations.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Social class with gender development

Under the subsection, "Parental establishment of gender roles" I'd like to add a few sentences discussing how the social class of parents can inherently influence a child's perception of gender through the division of labor by the couple. Hillary Paul Halpern and Maureen Perry-Jenkins demonstrate this idea in "Parents' Gender Ideology and Gendered Behavior on Teaching Practices: the role of gender and culture." Lower-class families typically hold traditional gender roles, where the father works and the mother, who may only work out of financial necessity, still takes care of the household. However, middle-class "professional" couples typically negotiate the division of labor and hold an egalitarian ideology. These different views on gender from a child's parents can shape the child's understanding of gender as well as the child's development of gender. CRMStudent1 (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately there was an error in the title I wrote above, the source I am using to back my information is called "Parents' Gender Ideology and Gendered Behavior as Predictors of Children's Gender-Role Attitudes: A Longitudinal Exploration." Sorry for the confusion. CRMStudent1 (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The complete MLA citation for the article: Halpern, Hillary Paul, and Maureen Perry-Jenkins. “Parents’ Gender Ideology and Gendered Behavior as Predictors of Children’s Gender-Role Attitudes: A Longitudinal Exploration.” Sex Roles, vol. 74, no. 11-12, Sept. 2015, pp. 527–542. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0539-0. CRMStudent1 (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Additional Resources

I just thought I'd propose a few additional resources that could be helpful to improving the article.

• Title: Parents’ Gender Ideology and Gendered Behavior as Predictors of Children’s Gender-Role Attitudes: A Longitudinal Exploration (citation: Halpern, Hillary Paul, and Maureen Perry-Jenkins. “Parents’ Gender Ideology and Gendered Behavior as Predictors of Children’s Gender-Role Attitudes: A Longitudinal Exploration.” Sex Roles, vol. 74, no. 11-12, Sept. 2015, pp. 527–542. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0539-0.)
• Title: Gender Differences in Teen Parents' Perceptions of Parental Responsibilities. (citation: Dallas, Constance et al. “Gender Differences in Teen Parents' Perceptions of Parental Responsibilities.” Public Health Nursing Public Health Nurs, vol. 17, no. 6, 2000, pp. 423–433. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1446.2000.00423.x.)
• Title: Early Childhood Educators’ Reflections on Teaching Practices: the role of gender and culture. (citation: Dewar, Brandy A. et al. “Early Childhood Educators’ Reflections on Teaching Practices: the Role of Gender and Culture.” Reflective Practice, vol. 14, no. 3, 2013, pp. 381–391. doi:10.1080/14623943.2013.767234.)
• Title: The Development of Sex/Gender-specific /s/ and its relationship to Gender Identity in Children in adolescents. (citation: Li, Fangfang et al. “The Development of Sex/Gender-Specific /s/ and Its Relationship to Gender Identity in Children and Adolescents.” Journal of Phonetics, vol. 57, 2016, pp. 59–70. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2016.05.004.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CRMStudent1 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Brinkman, Britney G, et al. "Children’S Gender Identity Development: The Dynamic Negotiation Process Between Conformity And Authenticity." Youth & Society 46.6 (2014): 835-852. Academic Search Complete. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.

McGeown, Sarah P. "Sex Or Gender Identity? Understanding Children's Reading Choices And Motivation." Journal Of Research In Reading 38.1 (2015): 35-46. Academic Search Complete. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.

Kerr, Barbara A., and Karen D. Multon. "The Development Of Gender Identity, Gender Roles, And Gender Relations In Gifted Students." Journal Of Counseling & Development 93.2 (2015): 183-191. Academic Search Complete. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.

Pillow, Bradford H., RaeAnne M. Pearson, and Cara Allen. "Young Children's Inductive Generalizations About Social Categories: When Is Gender Essential?." Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 61.4 (2015): 441-467. Academic Search Complete. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.

These are just a few more resources that could be used with the article.

CRMStudent1 (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Adding information of parental gender ideology and its effects

I'd like to add some information about Hillary Halpern's study in the article "Parents’ Gender Ideology and Gendered Behavior as Predictors of Children’s Gender-Role Attitudes: A Longitudinal Exploration" under the subsection "Parental establishment of gender roles". This study revealed that a mother’s gender behavior was a significant predictor of a child’s stereotyping of the child's own gender. Children with mothers who had a more traditional set of behaviors by the time they reached the age of six displayed fewer stereotypes concerning a son's own gender occured, but more stereotypes concerning a daughter's own gender was present. No relationships, however, were observed with stereotypes of the children’s opposite gender with a mother's behavior. Also, no relationships were found between a father’s behavior and his child(ren)’s knowledge of stereotypes concerning the child(ren)’s own gender; however when fathers held a more egalitarian ideology, children, especially boys, often showed fewer signs of stereotyping their opposite gender.

Any oppositions to this addition?

Halpern, Hillary Paul, and Maureen Perry-Jenkins. “Parents’ Gender Ideology and Gendered Behavior as Predictors of Children’s Gender-Role Attitudes: A Longitudinal Exploration.” Sex Roles, vol. 74, no. 11-12, Sept. 2015, pp. 527–542. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0539-0.)

CRMStudent1 (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

support sounds like an interesting addition. I do wonder if the section should be labelled more generally with "Parental influence" like it is in other articles, I'm thinking of eating disorder.Fred (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the renaming of the section, and if there are no other oppositions I encourage you to go ahead and change it. I've revised my contribution to improve the clarity of it as a whole: "Within a study conducted by Hillary Halpern it was hypothesized, and proven, that parent behaviors, rather than parent beliefs, regarding gender are better predictors for a child’s attitude on gender. It was concluded that a mother’s behavior was especially influential on a child’s assumptions of the child’s own gender. For example, mothers who practiced more traditional behaviors around their children resulted in the son displaying fewer stereotypes of male roles while the daughter displayed more stereotypes of female roles. No correlation was found between a father’s behavior and his children’s knowledge of stereotypes of their own gender. It was concluded, however, that fathers who held the belief of equality between the sexes had children, especially sons, who displayed fewer preconceptions of their opposite gender." Again, any oppositions or suggestions for the contribution? CRMStudent1 (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment—a single study, especially of a complex behavioral trait, should not be characterized as a "proof". It may support other studies, or be used to support a conclusion that is scientific consensus, for example, but not as "proof". — Neonorange (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Validity of Some Sources

Most of the article itself is unbiased, but the psychological studies used as references are always questionable . Although the article itself attempts to stay as neutrals possible, it is inevitable that some sources are bias in some way. Reference 34, for example, is opinionated. Source 51 was even inaccessible to me, so I was unable to check is validity. Also, reference 22 could be more appropriately placed under Biological Factors to further support that argument since it is a rather short section. Other than this problem, most of the least reliable sources are used just for definition rather than scientific reference that is necessary. Dphelzer (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dphelzer, thanks for your thorough checking of sources. You can access ref 51 through the internet archive. I have to disagree with you on ref 22, I think that is nurture. If other sources cite the same definition, you could add additional references to downplay those that you believe are less reliable.Fred (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Great deal of bias and overrepresentation

The article on "Gender Identity" has many bias opinions in regards to how biology influences gender identity. First and foremost,The author mainly supports the idea that social factors such as traditional family standards, parental demand, surgical procedures, and even what we choose to play with at a young age. The author addresses opposing viewpoints as "some may.."or "in some situations", simply expressing that only a portion of the community undergo certain circumstances. In addition, the author over-represents its references to John Money and his studies, even if they are proven to be discredited. Although there many sources from different scientists, the writer seems to have a certain interest with John Money's work because they constantly refer back to his findings. This obviously creates that sense of favorable bias in which could block the accurate findings for this article. Lastly, the author title-although is straightforward- should include the presenting of factors that correlate to gender identity. Not just introducing "gender identity" itself. Brittanybonilla (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

There is not single author of this article. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Broken source link

Source numbered 7 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity#cite_note-Kalbfleisch_and_Cody-7) is broken, opening the external link results in a 404 Error from Google.

201.219.250.165 (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Gender identity Review

Almost every sentence or claim in this Wikipedia article references credible sources such as books, research studies, and news articles. However, there are some statements, especially in the “Medical field” section, that need citations and references. I think that the information discussed in this article is relevant to the main topic of gender identity. However, I find the last section on “Alternate Gender Identities” ill placed in the article. I think it would be better to use the content, which describes multiple gender roles in past and current ethnical cultures, as support or examples of throughout the article in sections such as “Gender Variance and non-conformance”.The article is neutral and does a good job of stating facts instead of making an argument. The neutral sources that were mostly used were experiments, research, journals, and books. There were references and explanations on the conflicting beliefs of psychologists, experts, and researchers on the topic, but the article does not necessarily describe which beliefs are better or what beliefs the reader should believe. Most sections in the article are at least a paragraph long. However, “Butler’s views” only contains one sentence and is underrepresented. The citations I checked do work and do not show plagiarism. Overall, the article is relevant to our current time and covers the basics of gender identity. Cqchacon (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Gender Identity Article

I think this article was pretty informative for the most part. It was on the biased side just a little, in my opinion, but other than that it was good. I think the sources and information were very accurate and informative to whoever is reading the article. The nature and nurture section was the section I enjoyed reading the most, because I think it is the most relatable. Therefore, the content was good just the opinions good be a little more neutralized. Kimmashleee (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)kim s

Gender Identity Article

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

For the most part, this article is generally neutral, however there are certain phrases and sentences that use biased terminology (ex. "In all societies..."). Under the "Age of Formation" heading, there are a few sentences that are contradictory to each other, especially discussing that age at which gender identity forms/stops forming. Rysettles (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Gender Identity Questions

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Yes, for the most part each fact has a little mark that indicates a source for it.

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Everything in the article was relevant to the topic. There wasn't anything that distracted me, but there were areas that would branch out into broader topics, still in relation to it.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I would say it is neutral for the most part, but a little biased when talking about gender's biological aspects.

Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? The information comes from authors and other articles, and they are pretty neutral.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think the article talks about the overall aspect of the topic pretty well.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article? Yes, these citations work, and the ones I clicked on didn't have any plagiarism.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? No information is out of date, but I think the idea of gender identity could be explained in more depth a little. Kimmashleee (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC) Kim S.

@Kimmashleee, Rysettles, and Cqchacon: Are you all taking a class? Did the instructor ask you to post a set of questions verbatim on the article talk page and respond to them like this? It reads as a bit awkward. It would be more helpful for other editors if you post specific suggestions you have for improving the article, or (for minor things) just be WP:BOLD and make the improvements yourself. Funcrunch (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

These statements lack specificity and don't seem consistent with an intention to build the encyclopedia, Trankuility (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Trankuility: I think I've found the class page and relevant assignment, which says to "Answer all of the above questions in regard to the article you're evaluating. Leave your evaluation in your sandbox space and on the article's Talk page." Pinging the instructor and content expert listed for the class, Jbhays11019 and Adam (Wiki Ed). Funcrunch (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

References

yes we are taking a class and were asked to do that; no that is not the class we are taking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rysettles (talk • contribs) 01:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

About my recent edit and its undo (feminist rejection of gender identity)

@User:Flyer22 Reborn: Sorry, can you elaborate on what you meant in the change log? Do you mean that the whole topic of some people rejecting gender identity should be moved out of the lead section? (And if so, I guess my edit was undone but the original form left because I made the part longer instead of shorter?) Since there's already a whole section on gender non-conforming people, would it be OK to just remove the whole sentence to which I had added a clause? Thanks for the support. TaylanUB (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi TaylanUB. The lead summarizes the content in the body. Where is "whereas others reject gender altogether on the basis of feminism, in particular radical feminism" covered in the body? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh I see, that makes sense of course. (It's mentioned in radical feminism but I suppose this doesn't count with regard to WP:Lead rules.) I'll see that I add something relevant to the body as well. TaylanUB (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I reverted you here because of what NeilN stated (I don't quite see what you added to the lead being covered lower) and because your edit seemed to focus on "feminist rejection of the gender imposed on one's sex," when there are many feminists who embrace gender as more than just a social construct or who embrace gender assignment. There are feminists who recognize sex differences in humans as valid rather than as simply a social construct (for example, the fact that men commit more crimes than women and that there may be biological reasons for this and not just social reasons for it). Also, just because something is covered lower in the article doesn't mean that it should be covered in the lead. Only the most important or relevant aspects should be covered in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gender identity. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160914152729/http://oii.org.au/wp-content/uploads/key/Intersex-Stories-Statistics-Australia.pdf to http://oii.org.au/wp-content/uploads/key/Intersex-Stories-Statistics-Australia.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110209002411/http://www.gpac.org/ to http://www.gpac.org/

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Citation does not support claim

The claim While genetic makeup also influences gender identity,[18][19] it does not inflexibly determine it.[20] is not actually supported by this phrase from citation 20 which reads: When assigned and raised as boys, these genetic girls adopt a male gender identity and role, showing that a Y chromosome is not necessary for gender development to proceed in a male direction. The citation talks about girls who have congenital adrenal hyperplasia, which is caused by a genetic mutation - the mutation is a part of the genetic makeup! Y chromosome in not the effector of sex and gender identity development, testosterone is. Research referenced in the citation source only indicates that in specific rare cases, Y chromosome is not needed for a male gender identity to emerge - when a mutation (such as CAH) occurs that produces some of the same effects as the Y chromosome - increased testosterone. It does not indicate that genetic makeup does not determine gender identity in those cases. I altered the sentence to better reflect what the source actually says.

Zephyrae (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Zephyrae, I agreed with just about everything you said here, and yet the change you made to the actual article is not an improvement, so I reverted it. Yes, of course the influence of chromosomes may be altered by mutations, otherwise there would be no selective pressure, and no evolution, so that's kind of a truism, but how does it help here? It doesn't. And this isn't even about that, so it just seems like an unhelpful comment to insert at that point. Either we should introduce better wording to represent that source, or find another source easier to cite, or ditch the example entirely and go to the flip side and use androgen insensitivity syndrome as the example, and find a source for that that is easier to summarize in the article, perhaps. What do you think? Mathglot (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Section Gender variance needs a complete rewrite

The section Gender variance and non-conformance makes all sorts of confusing, and or dubious claims about gender variance, or is just plain awkwardly worded. In addition, except for the first paragraph, it's very poorly referenced. The section should be rewritten.

The problems are notable especially in the last two paragraphs, which start off with this:

Many people consider themselves to belong to the binary gender which corresponds to their binary (male or female) sex, i.e. they are cisgender.

For starters, that's an awkward definition of cisgender at best, and a poor lead sentence for a paragraph which doesn't talk about cisgender at all, but about genitalia and chromosomes, in confusing wording such as:

Those defined as women, by sex, have genitalia that are considered female and have two X chromosomes; those viewed as men, by sex, are seen as having male genitalia and one X and one Y chromosome.

What it does go on to say about genitalia, chromosomes, and secondary sexual characteristics seems like someone spinning off comments off the top of their head in a college bull session:

In addition, genitalia vary greatly and a few individuals have more than one type of genitalia. Also, other bodily attributes related to a person's sex (body shape, facial hair, high or deep voice, etc.) may or may not coincide with their social category of man or woman. For example, a person with female genitalia, as well as a deep voice and facial hair, may have difficulty determining which gender they identify with.

This is a jumble of confusing, dubious, embarrassingly oversimplified or erroneous OR claims, and should either be removed, or rewritten entirely. Mathglot (talk) 07:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

For the record, much of the problematic material in this section has been removed. Mathglot (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Word Change for clarification

Hi! Under the section 'Biological causes of transgender and transsexuality, I edited the last sentence for clarification. Originally, it said "...do not match up with the norm of the actual sex, and in a person acting and looking like the opposite sex." I changed it to "...do not match up with the norm of their sex assigned at birth, and in a person acting and looking like their preferred gender" to better clarify what the hormones effect biologically and how that shows in a persons gender expression. If anyone has anything to add, I would be happy to discuss. Charismatic88 (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that "identified gender" is better than "preferred gender," which can suggest a degree of choice or that the person's simply prefers people of that gender. So that's what I changed it to. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I see your point. That does make more sense. Thanks for your input! Charismatic88 (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

"while others do not wish to place a label on their gender identity"

Helper201, reagrding this and this, I have been reverting you because genderqueer/non-binary covers those who do not want to label their gender identity. Furthermore, those people still have a label. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Those who identify as having no gender or being without a gender identity are called agender, non-gendered, ungendered, genderless, genderfree or neutrois. This is noted in the Genderqueer article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

In some cases this is true. However there are people who would classify non-binary as a label in of itself and would not identify as non-binary or wish be identified by others as such (nor any of the other labels you have listed). Indeed these people may be labelled by others according to the confines of a gender paradigm, however I would regard a persons own self-identity to be more important - and at the very least should be regarded as being "as" important - as what they are labelled by society. Helper201 (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Helper201, thanks for explaining your point of view. I think that the reason the people in question are given a label is because of the question of how to refer to them if they don't have a label. I've talked to people who identify as agender, non-gendered, or neutrois, for example, and they are clear that they believe these terms indicate that they don't have a gender identity label, but that they also recognize that people need to call them something. One person stated that they would hate to be called "it," for instance. My issue with your edit is that not only do "genderqueer" and "non-binary" redirect to the same article, that article covers those who do not wish to place a label on their gender identity. I don't see that we should be separating them from "non-binary." At least not without a WP:Reliable source separating them. But then...what would that WP:Reliable source call them? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Even "people who do not wish to place a label on their gender identity" can be considered a label; it is another categorization. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you for your willingness to discuss this. Personally I've found the ability to refer to people without gender terms very easy, or even terms in general (I think they are mostly only necessary when speaking of a third-person/"the other person", during one on one conversations I think it is easy to largely avoid terms when speaking to/about each other). Usually its just a matter of referring to people via their given name / names (or possibly a nickname/pseudonym if they prefer) and using neutral terms occasionally such as "they", I certainly wouldn't call someone "it", as that just seems to me like referring to someone as if they were an inanimate object. While I accept that falling into habits of using gender terms is going to happen and people lapse due to the nature of society and the emphasis of gender through media, culture and society from birth to death, I don't think that on a formal or one on one basis its that hard to get around, especially as most people don't fit this, no label / no gender identity mold, so its only a very slim minority that needs to be thought of in this way. The reason why I separated genderqueer and non-binary is because to me and many other people using the term "queer" sounds derogatory, although I respect this isn't the same for everyone, I think many people still feel this way. This coupled with the fact that, as far as I'm aware, genderqueer is a relatively new phrase in the mainstream, therefore for the sake of a few extra words it helps avoid what some may regard as disrespectful while also adding clarity, without having to refer to the linked page. Helper201 (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a categorization, but not a label, which is the best way I can think of going about this within this context of a brief opening section. Helper201 (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

With regard to referring to people, I was mainly speaking of referring to the group as a whole (although I did touch on the "it" aspect). When speaking to people one-on-one, I agree that gendered terms can be avoided and their names or singular they can be used, although slip-ups happen. I understand what you mean about the term genderqueer; we recently had another WP:Requested moves discussion about it. You can see it with this link. Do look at the sources I provided there. Because of those sources (and my arguments), the article was not moved. While I understand the need to respect people's feelings, Wikipedia, as you know, goes by what WP:Reliable source state. And, to my knowledge, there are no WP:Reliable sources that separate "people who do not wish to place a label on their gender identity" from non-binary people. Instead, they are given one of the non-binary labels. When it comes to reporting on this subset, they are going to be given a label because there is no other way to refer to them, unless stating "people who do not wish to place a label on their gender identity" or similar. But "people who do not wish to place a label on their gender identity" equates to "someone who identifies as having no gender or being without a gender identity" in sources. And, again, this subset has been given different names. Even if sources were to list "someone who identifies as having no gender or being without a gender identity" as a bullet point under those names, this would indeed be yet another label. A long-winded one, but a label nevertheless. I also understand that the labels agender, non-gendered, ungendered, genderless, genderfree or neutrois can be considered a gender identity label, but these people are all stating that they have no gender or gender identity. As for linking both "genderqueer" and "non-binary," I find it to be unnecessary WP:Overlinking since the terms currently go to the same page. I didn't slash the terms (see WP:Slash); my text is "genderqueer or non-binary" with a WP:Pipelink to the article that both terms go to. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gender identity. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517084227/http://www.hrc.org/workplace/transgender to http://www.hrc.org/workplace/transgender
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120318004549/http://www.transfemmebutch.co.uk/forum.php to http://www.transfemmebutch.co.uk/forum.php

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2017

Please Change country to country/continent JustinBlanko (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gender identity. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007055838/http://www.gires.org.uk/genderdev.php to http://www.gires.org.uk/genderdev.php

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gender identity. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170202004508/http://www.nccah-ccnsa.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/156/2016-05-10-RPT-HealthTwoSpirit-Hunt-EN-Web.pdf to http://www.nccah-ccnsa.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/156/2016-05-10-RPT-HealthTwoSpirit-Hunt-EN-Web.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

About the definition

The definition of “gender identity” (“Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender.”) is circular, because gender is defined including the gender identity: “Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (...), sex-based social structures (...), or gender identity.” So gender identity can be the personal sense of one’s own gender identity!178.60.17.142 (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Tiago Vidal

Pronouns

The phrasing, "transgender individuals are greatly affected by language and gender pronouns before, during, and after their transition", suggests that all transgender individuals are "greatly" affected by pronoun usage.

This may not always be the case and a transgender individual may experience little to no social dysphoria but significant amounts of physical dysphoria. Suggestion to remove the adverb "greatly and to replace it with "sometimes" or "may be".

Additionally this somewhat assumes the binary whereas transgender is an umbrella term and can include non binary, genderqueer or genderfluid invidiuals who may or may not transition. AHOctet (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

How about "are often greatly affected"? Yhdwww (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Biological factors section

What an odd first para under "biological factors". Googling finds, what appears to be, WP copies on low quality sites. You can it exactly in some sort of essay on this site. Google scholar gives essentially no hits for the term "biochemical theory of gender identity" other than link mentioned in the last sentence. This makes sense, since I don't think any credible scientist could consider it a theory in any meaningful way (nor is there evidence that it has been historically held as a theory). The last two paras talk about hormones but don't say anything about gender identity.Maneesh (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Obfuscation of sex in Bradley et al.

The sentence "Bradley et al. (1998) report the contrasting case of a 26-year old woman with XY chromosomes whose penis was lost and who underwent sex reassignment surgery between two and seven months of age" obfuscates the underlying facts. Bradley et al. refers to the patient in the case report as an 'XY male', the application of MOS:GENDERID is obfuscating underlying facts and the obvious need for clarity reflected in the underlying paper.Maneesh (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The present text makes clear that the person in question had XY chromosomes and was born with a penis. I don't see anything unclear about that, much less a reason to depart from MOS:GENDERID, the latter being very broadly supported by site-wide consensus established through multiple RfCs. Newimpartial (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't seem true, MOS:GENDERID leads to MOS:IDINFO which is labelled with "This proposal must not be taken to represent consensus...". Is that that correct page?Maneesh (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The way reliable secondary sources talked about gender non-conforming individuals has changed significantly from the 90s. MOS:GENDERID does seem to be the standard used in cases like these on pages across wikipedia and I doubt you will find a consensus to contradict it by using a 90s primary source. As for obfuscation, the article is very clear about this person's genitals at birth and sex chromosomes. Separately, per WP:MEDRS we maybe should find a secondary source that discusses this study to cite here. Rab V (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, I think there is some confusion about the manual of style. MOS:GENDERID is part of the manual of style, representing discussion and consensus and "it is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow" as stated at the top of the page. MOS:IDINFO is a different page for suggesting revisions to MOS:GENDERID and containing the historic discussions regarding that policy. That's why that page is labeled as containing proposals that may not represent consensus, use MOS:GENDERID instead. Rab V (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID is mainly about the "Main biographical article on a person whose gender might be questioned." How to refer to people in other articles is a case-by-case matter. I don't see any issue with the current text. I clearly re-added "penis" without use of "her penis." The Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language#Precision and clarity essay gives advice on this type of thing. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)