 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dictionary definition
@Tataral has just added a definition of 'female' taken from Merriam-Webster that refers to "gender identity".[1] However, this is the third definition of the term, coming below the primary definition of (as an adjective) "1 a(1) : of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs" and "1 a(2) botany : having or producing only pistils or pistillate flowers" or (as a noun) "1 a: a female person : a woman or a girl b: an individual of the sex that is typically capable of bearing young or producing eggs 2: a pistillate plant." The page is about "'Adult human female" where 'female' is a noun, not an adjective. The primary definitions as they relate to sex seem more appropriate and relevant to a discussion of gender-critical views. Many of the other definitions are also more aligned with the sex definition, as opposed to the gender one cited and I'd propose the primary noun definition, ie "1 a: a female person : a woman or a girl b: an individual of the sex that is typically capable of bearing young or producing eggs" (with the rest of that sentence reworded accordingly, somehow). Zeno27 (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree. The point of this article is to address the use of "adult human female" as an anti-trans slogan, which incorrectly claims that "female" excludes trans women. Your suggestion to prioritize definitions based solely on reproductive capacity misrepresents the reality that "female" includes trans women, as recognized in modern definitions. --Tataral (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's my understanding that's not the meaning used in gender-critical discourse, which is what you're trying to describe here. I can't see it helps quoting a secondary definition and ignoring the primary one when that appears to be the intended meaning. This could be rescued if there was a RS you could cite that showed the secondary meaning was the one relied on in gender-critical discourse. There's still the issue that you used an adjectival definition when the word in the phrase is a noun. Zeno27 (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- The source cited, Merriam-Webster, explicitly defines female (noun) as "a female person," which refers back to the adjective form defined above on the same page where one of the definitions is "having a gender identity that is the opposite of male." This makes it clear that the term female includes trans women, and the cited definition is directly relevant to the discussion. --Tataral (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was asking if there was a citation that showed that your meaning is the one intended in gender-critical discourse. However, the definition doesn't stop there: it goes on to say ": a woman or a girl b: an individual of the sex that is typically capable of bearing young or producing eggs". Zeno27 (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are many sources included in the article that discuss how the term is used by this movement to exclude trans women. The article does not say that the cited definition is the only definition. Discussing pistillate plants is not relevant to this article. --Tataral (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't suggest discussing pistillate plants but can you select a source for this meaning of the term to add to the sentence? Zeno27 (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are many sources included in the article that discuss how the term is used by this movement to exclude trans women. The article does not say that the cited definition is the only definition. Discussing pistillate plants is not relevant to this article. --Tataral (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was asking if there was a citation that showed that your meaning is the one intended in gender-critical discourse. However, the definition doesn't stop there: it goes on to say ": a woman or a girl b: an individual of the sex that is typically capable of bearing young or producing eggs". Zeno27 (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- The source cited, Merriam-Webster, explicitly defines female (noun) as "a female person," which refers back to the adjective form defined above on the same page where one of the definitions is "having a gender identity that is the opposite of male." This makes it clear that the term female includes trans women, and the cited definition is directly relevant to the discussion. --Tataral (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- The title of the article doesn't suggest that the 'point' is to address the use of the term as an anti-trans slogan. If that is what the article was created to describe, then the title should reflect that. 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:F086:443D:3F49:9BCC (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Completely biased
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The oxford english dictionary definition of woman is adult human female. Why is this article about the literal definition of woman being portrayed as anti transgender? Mazerks (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nice try, but the OED definition actually seems to be "An adult female human being". Did you think we wouldn't look it up? DanielRigal (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's literally the exactly same thing. You are literally clutching at straws. Mazerks (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, come on. Please don't pretend to be stupid. You can see that these are very different phases but, even if the terms were equivalent, which they are not, it would still be unacceptable to glibly misquote the OED.
- A woman is a human being, not a female. To literally dehumanise women as "females" (as a noun) is misogyny. (Yes, I know how to use the word "literally" correctly.)
- OK, but let's pretend that you don't already know this. Lets do a bit of semantics. A big red dog is a dog that is both big and red. That's a dog. Not "a big". Not "a red". We would not describe a big red dog as a "big dog red" or a "red dog big" because the only noun here is dog and that goes at the end of the phrase, after the adjectives.
- "adult female human being": adjective, adjective, compound noun. Grammatically correct.
- "adult human female": adjective, adjective, adjective or adjective, noun, adjective. Grammatically incorrect either way.
- Where I do think that people misunderstand the phrase "adult human female" is in considering it primarily transphobic. It is actually equally dehumanising to all women by redefining them from people to "females". It is primarily misogynist. What makes it transphobic is that it is currently being used in a way that is aggressively targeted at trans women. There is nothing to stop it being used against cis women later. DanielRigal (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- My dictionary (Concise Oxford Dictionary) says that ‘female’ is an adjective and a noun. The meaning of the noun is given as ‘a female person, animal, or plant’. An important use of the word ‘female’ as a noun is that it covers both girls and women. Referring to a woman as an ‘adult human female’ is not dehumanising or misogynistic. Using the expression ‘cis women’ is misogynistic, because it implies that biological women don’t really count as women. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC) (PS I’m not accusing you of being misogynistic.) Sweet6970 (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Careful. That could easily be interpreted as trolling. DanielRigal (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Merriam Webster list “female” as an adjective and a noun and a synonym for woman, so your assertion that a woman is not a female is wrong. We follow the sources, not personal opinions. Jorgebox4 (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- How is calling a woman 'female' dehumanising? Have you lost the plot? The Wikipedia page Woman defines a woman as an adult female human, so you disagree with not only the dictionary definition but also the Wikipedia definition. Mazerks (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, on that example of 'big red dog', that makes no sense at all. No wonder you don't believe in IQ. Your dog example does not apply because 'red' and 'big' are not nouns; on the contrary, 'female' is a noun. Furthermore, calling a dog big and red is simply describing a dog, it is not racist or fatphobic. Calling women 'females' is a way of describing their sex/characteristics, it is not misogynistic. On your logic, calling gay people gay people would be homophobic, calling transgender people transgender people would be transphobic and calling black people black people would be racist. Mazerks (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are so close to getting it that it's painful to read. Yes, calling a gay person "a gay" would be homophobic. Calling a black person "a black" would be racist. Calling a trans person "a trans" would be transphobic. Pretty much the only time a man or a woman is called "a male" or "a female" is in police descriptions where they can't rule out the possibility that the unknown person that they are talking about is/was not an adult. I think you understand this. I think you know that, if you referred to a black person to their face as "a black", you would not be making any friends that day. I don't see any point in pretending otherwise. DanielRigal (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pal, it doesn't compare at all. That is because 'black', 'gay' and 'trans' are not nouns. Female is a noun. Calling a woman a female is not misogynistic or discriminatory. No one is going to let you rewrite the dictionary based on your own opinion and preferences. Mazerks (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some sources and people do consider nouning "female" to be objectivizing; see wikt:female#Usage notes which lists three. I personally tend to associate calling women "females" with the manosphere/incel/pickup space in which we are, in fact, objects.
- But this is mostly beside the point; I don't think this is going anywhere. Let's stick to source-based and policy-based discussion focused on constructive improvements to the article. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (talk • stalk) 14:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- In spite of your views, I prefer to conform with proper grammar and it is not misogynistic or discriminatory to agree with the dictionary, which clearly states female is both a noun and an adjective. Using 'male' and 'female' as nouns does not imply either are objects and are not intended to mean as such. Mazerks (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pal, it doesn't compare at all. That is because 'black', 'gay' and 'trans' are not nouns. Female is a noun. Calling a woman a female is not misogynistic or discriminatory. No one is going to let you rewrite the dictionary based on your own opinion and preferences. Mazerks (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are so close to getting it that it's painful to read. Yes, calling a gay person "a gay" would be homophobic. Calling a black person "a black" would be racist. Calling a trans person "a trans" would be transphobic. Pretty much the only time a man or a woman is called "a male" or "a female" is in police descriptions where they can't rule out the possibility that the unknown person that they are talking about is/was not an adult. I think you understand this. I think you know that, if you referred to a black person to their face as "a black", you would not be making any friends that day. I don't see any point in pretending otherwise. DanielRigal (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, in your example "adult human female", 'adult' and 'human' are both adjectives, and 'female' is a noun. This is perfectly correct grammar. By the way, 'red' can also be a noun as well as an adjective. Don't ping me. Tewdar 10:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you wish so badly not to be involved in an obviously unproductive conversation, it may behoove you not to try to get the last word in. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (talk • stalk) 11:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, to be honest this discussion should probably have been closed after Tataral's excellent response below, before Daniel's 'grammar' lesson started. Tewdar 12:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you wish so badly not to be involved in an obviously unproductive conversation, it may behoove you not to try to get the last word in. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (talk • stalk) 11:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- My dictionary (Concise Oxford Dictionary) says that ‘female’ is an adjective and a noun. The meaning of the noun is given as ‘a female person, animal, or plant’. An important use of the word ‘female’ as a noun is that it covers both girls and women. Referring to a woman as an ‘adult human female’ is not dehumanising or misogynistic. Using the expression ‘cis women’ is misogynistic, because it implies that biological women don’t really count as women. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC) (PS I’m not accusing you of being misogynistic.) Sweet6970 (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's literally the exactly same thing. You are literally clutching at straws. Mazerks (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- The article is not about the definition of woman. That article is called woman. This article is specifically about the anti-trans slogan or dogwhistle popularized back in 2018 by Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull and now used within the broader anti-gender movement and by the Trump administration, among others. --Tataral (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I tried not to comment, really I did. But if calling women "females" is misogyny
, then literally 😁 all of these recent archaeology (mostly) articles are misogynistic. Or perhaps it's okay if they're dead? Still, there's plenty of other subjects where this usage is still apparently acceptable after 2021. If you're only seeing female used as a noun in police descriptions
or manosphere/incel/pickup space
, then you would probably benefit from expanding your reading horizons.
Finally, perhaps a page move to Adult human female (slogan) would be helpful?
Do not ping me back to this discussion Tewdar 19:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Of course, I forgot that a female can be a fossil, a cadaver, and a murder suspect, contexts which aren't dehumanizing at all. This disproves my point expertly. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (talk • stalk) 11:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Look, I see your point that in some contexts 'female' as a noun according to some sources can be somewhat depersonalized, derogatory, or dehumanizing. In many contexts, especially scientific or legal contexts it's perfectly acceptable and not dehumanizing, just somewhat depersonalized. Tewdar 11:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Tewdar, including the suggestion for a move. Perhaps RoxySaunders should stop trying to have the last word. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Look, I see your point that in some contexts 'female' as a noun according to some sources can be somewhat depersonalized, derogatory, or dehumanizing. In many contexts, especially scientific or legal contexts it's perfectly acceptable and not dehumanizing, just somewhat depersonalized. Tewdar 11:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
I'll admit that I made the mistake of feeding the troll on this thread but this should not be used as an excuse for an all-you-can-eat buffet for disruptive kvetching. Let's end it here. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pointing out your grammatical and other errors is not 'disruptive kvetching', although, like your comments to the OP, and the original comment itself, it is probably off-topic for this page. Anyway, why not close the section so we can all get on with the rest of our day? Tewdar 16:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Notability tag
An anonymous user has added the Notability tag to this article. They have not come here to explain why. On a first glance, the tag seems unjustified. There are multiple reliable references here and they seem to amount to significant coverage of the topic. I'm not removing the tag right away, and if anybody wants to try to justify the tag then we should leave it while discussion is actively ongoing. That said, tags are not meant to be used as badges of shame and, if nobody says anything to support the tag, then it should be removed. After all, that wouldn't stop anybody from revisiting the issue later. DanielRigal (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- It does not seem to be needed at this point of time. Just finished assessing the article and I gave it a Start-class. It needs more content for a C-class Article. It is very close to C-class though. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 11:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirects upon redirects
Were the redirects discussed and I missed it? If not then I propose that they be undone. Very clearly the hate slogan is the primary topic here. Very clearly there is no other topic called "Adult human female" to require the disambiguation in brackets. The redirect to Woman seems to miss the point so badly that I am having to force myself to AGF. It's not like the normal, correct definition, Adult female human, redirects to Woman so why should Adult human female, which is a very weird definition of female and not even universally accepted as correct? It's beyond obtuse.
If this was discussed, and this was the consensus, and I missed it then fair enough but if this is just misguided redirect fiddling then lets just undo it. The current redirection is confusing and completely unnecessary. It will have the effect of ensuring that almost nobody will find the article that is the primary topic here, i.e. this one. Like I say, I'm straining to AGF so I won't follow that line of thought any further at this time. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Agree. Given the past lengthy discussion on this subject, this move and redirect should have been discussed first. I cannot undo it, but I've retargeted Adult human female back to this page. The hatnote here is already perfectly fine, in the very unlikely case that someone searches or links adult human female in a way that is not trans-related.
- As it stands, we would need a corresponding hatnote on Woman, which is less than ideal:
- –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (talk • stalk) 21:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Ping @Mazerks @Blethering Scot. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (talk • stalk) 21:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- I don't really have any comment around the original move/redirect creation. Its not an area I feel comfortable being involved in. However if the decision is to leave the article at that title, then it makes sense for the created redirect to point to adult female, rather than be a redirect to a redirect with no disam requirement.Blethering Scot 21:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- For my part, a not-very-scientific analysis shows that more than half of the publications searchable on Google Scholar since 2021 which use the phrase "adult female human" do so in a transgender context.
- –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (talk • stalk) 22:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
In progress: I'm working a revert of this undiscussed move (and associated redirects) based on a request over at WP:RMTR. While reverts for undiscussed and contentious moves are normally a fast process, on a sensitive topic like this it might take some time to work through, but know that someone is looking and working on this issue. TiggerJay (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Done: Due to the contentious nature of this topic, please use a full WP:RM process before moving this page, as well as using the WP:RFD before making any changes to the redirects associated with this page. TiggerJay (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull / Posie Parker
As mentioned here by @Tewdar:, we need sources to call them a far-right activist
. The Guardian did describe them as an anti-trans activist
at some point so that may be a suitable alternative if no reliable sources can be found. Polygnotus (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
@RoxySaunders: What do you think? Polygnotus (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- Just to let you know that I will be taking no further part in this discussion lest I be accused of
disruptive kvetching
or my username outlined in an even worse colour in Shinigami Eyes. Don't ping me back here please. Tewdar 09:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC) - Anti-trans is correct.. Far right was based on Hope Not Hate saying she increasingly found support from and an overlap in views with the far right [2] which I carelessly mistook for an uncontroversial fact about her. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (talk • stalk) 13:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- It is one of those situations where people provide a platform for and stand side by side with and don't object to the presence of et cetera. But yeah we need ironclad sources for such claims. Polygnotus (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Some ip removed far-right. I'll add "anti-trans" back in because people generally aren't generic activists who support all causes. Polygnotus (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
@Golikom: I have supplied a source. Polygnotus (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- I said you haven't cited it properly, not that you didn't provide a source Golikom (talk) 11:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
‘Anti-trans’ is supported by sources. ‘Far-right’ isn’t. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Sex Matters (book)
Australian TERF Holly Lawford-Smith devotes a chapter of her book Sex Matters: Essays in Gender-Critical Philosophy to defending the "woman: adult human female" meme, arguing that is a "gender-critical dogwhistle" but not a "transphobic dogwhistle", and therefore, not "harmful speech". The chapter's text is accessible from Google Scholar, and her opinion might be worth referencing in the name of presenting a balance of (attributed) views. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (talk • stalk) 01:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the link. However, I think that this para is somewhat more relevant to this article:
Men have defined women for thousands of years of male-dominated history; women have literally become what men wanted them to be (see discussion in MacKinnon 1987, p. 59). Women have the moral right to push back on this, to define themselves. ‘Woman: adult human female’ is the definition that makes the most sense to gender-critical women, and gives them what they want for feminist politics, namely a coherent class with a demonstrable history of oppression. There should be a high bar on anyone’s attempting to override this self-definition in their own interests. You cannot pretend to respect a woman’s right to self-define while simultaneously telling her which definitions are acceptable.
- I suggest that we select
‘Woman: adult human female’ is the definition that makes the most sense to gender-critical women, and gives them what they want for feminist politics, namely a coherent class with a demonstrable history of oppression.
and add this to the article as representative of the view of Lawford-Smith on this expression. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- Is there any research done on women who self-identify as gender-critical to figure out what definition they prefer? If not, the claim is rather weak. I think that "person X believes Y" is stronger. What do you think? Polygnotus (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- This is fine, I suppose. I'm not sure how instructive it is to quote a TERF saying the phrase is innocuous and feminist given that our other sources already illustrate that (1) yes, they do say that, and (2) no it isn't. I would prefer a selection that engages with the phrase less obliquely. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (talk • stalk) 01:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- I am suggesting that we should say in our article:
Holly Lawford-Smith said of the expression:” ‘Woman: adult human female’ is the definition that makes the most sense to gender-critical women, and gives them what they want for feminist politics, namely a coherent class with a demonstrable history of oppression.”
- Do we have agreement to add this to the article? Sweet6970 (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'd like someone else to weigh in as I'm still on the fence. The more I learn about this writer, the less I want to platform her. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (talk • stalk) 23:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- What's the argument for inclusion here? LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- The argument for inclusion is that we should include all relevant points of view, per WP:NPOV
The neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.
. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)- I'm not 100% convinced on sufficient due weight but this article is bare bones at the moment so I'm not wholly opposed either. LunaHasArrived (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- The argument is that we don't only include viewpoints that you personally like.2A02:810D:BCBF:FD88:312E:A695:75B8:B2CA (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- The argument for inclusion is that we should include all relevant points of view, per WP:NPOV
- I am suggesting that we should say in our article:
Allegations from 2022
This text: In 2022, a man from California was arrested for allegedly threatening to bomb Merriam-Webster's offices and kill its employees.
is about allegations from 2022. This is too indefinite for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Unless there has since been some definite report about this alleged incident, it should be deleted. WP:NOTNEWS Sweet6970 (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Sweet6970: Currently the article uses ABC News but there is also:
- https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/22/us/merriam-webster-threats-lgbtq.html
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/09/16/merriam-webster-lgbtq-threat/
- https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-threatened-merriam-webster-gender-inclusive-definitions-was-senten-rcna79838
- https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-vowed-bomb-merriam-webster-gender-inclusive-entries-pleads-guilty-rcna48155
- https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/04/23/feds-man-threatened-merriam-webster-bombing/7423063001/
- https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-04-22/orange-county-man-anti-lgbtq-threats-merriam-webster
- https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/california-man-arrested-and-charged-making-threats-against-lgbtq-community
- https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/california-man-sentenced-threatening-merriam-webster-anti-lgbtq-violence
- Google has many more sources. I am now on a list because I googled
bomb Merriam-Webster's office
. That person got one year and one day in prison and three years of supervised release. - Polygnotus (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding these. Given that he plead guilty and was sentenced, allleged is incorrect. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (talk • stalk) 00:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Good point, I removed it. Polygnotus (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Polygnotus: Thanks for this. I’ll use the Massachusetts Attorney’s Office reference, which shows the conviction. If you suddenly stop editing, we’ll know why…….. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Perfect, thank you! Polygnotus (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding these. Given that he plead guilty and was sentenced, allleged is incorrect. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (talk • stalk) 00:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
