Talk:Femininity/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The rest of the article

Maybe we could take a break from arguing about the lead and actually work on the article itself, which is pretty terrible. I collected a bunch of sources above about hair and femininity. The article could probably use an entire section devoted to this. We also need a section on cosmetics and a section on clothing (with a subsection on shoes). Right now the only places we mention cosmetics, high-heeled shoes, dresses, and perfume are in the history section, as if these things had nothing to do with current ideas of femininity. Kaldari (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Definitely agree with that. I'm not sure editors here can put the lead aside for now and focus on the rest of the article, however. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs work. If you're interested in working on clothing, shoes and make-up, you may want to do it on the masculine article, especially since the fastest growing market segment in the cosmetics industry is men, who are willing to pay almost twice as much for the same body wash, lotion and shampoos with "manly" packaging. Even European men [1] and Indian men [2]. Please feel free to work on these topics and I encourage you to get them out into a separate but related article. Appearance is no longer a feminine interest only. According L'Oreal, men's skin care sales surged three times the rate of the overall market [3]. USchick (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

And I suppose high-heeled shoes are considered masculine now as well? Next you'll tell me that RuPaul is modelling for Old Spice. If only :) Kaldari (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, "meel" is the term for men's high heels [4]. They got international attention with French President Nicolas Sarkozy [5], and are very popular with men like Frank Sinatra, Michael Douglas, Sylvester Stallone, and Tom Cruize who want to gain a few inches [6]. :-) USchick (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, there are parts of India where long hair is considered the norm for both men and women. And of course in many Native American cultures, long hair is considered gender-neutral. Regardless, in most of the world, there are still strong associations between certain styles of appearance and femininity, and those styles often include cosmetics and certain types of clothing and shoes. The fact that the article doesn't discuss this at all is a shortcoming. Without discussing the basic assumptions of femininity, it doesn't make sense for us to point out the exceptions and historical changes. They don't make sense if presented without any context of what femininity is usually assumed to mean. Kaldari (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think there are issues in the rest of the article about confusing women with femininity. For example, this sentence: "According to English Common Law, all property a wife held at the time of marriage transferred to her husband, and as late as 1537, according to the translated version of the Matthew Bible, it was perfectly acceptable for a husband to beat his wife into submission." --Aronoel (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree about that sentence and removed it. USchick (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This is interesting, from Human Behavior in the Social Environment: A Multidimensional Perspective p.460: There are four gender role classifications – androgynous, masculine, feminine and undifferentiated. [7]. So in sociology, it's a much broader question than the two classifications we currently have in this article. In Indonesia, there are 5 genders [8]. No wonder we struggle with definitions, if we only have two main classifications. USchick (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Definition of femininity

I know that the intro has been discussed many times. I've read the previous discussions. This is why I am confused about the intro still having such a strict definition of femininity. It currently says, "Femininity is socially constructed and distinct from biological female sex." But that is not true in all cases. The human female body is considered feminine, for example. And no matter what we say about femininity being a social construct, using the term to refer to the female sex is a biological aspect of the term. Male and female bodies are not the same and are not socially constructed. Saying that the female body is feminine is simply a word used to describe it. After all, a word had to be used. Further, as pointed out above by Dave3457 in #The lead sentence section, feminine traits can also be due to biology. This is also shown in the Femininity#Behavior and personality section. At least something about this debate should be in the lead. The World Health Organization (WHO) is not the be-all and end-all definition of gender and gender categories, as demonstrated by the many researchers who would disagree with WHO in part. The lead should at least qualify the "socially constructed" mention with the word "often" or "usually," so that it reads: "Femininity is often socially constructed and distinct from biological female sex." Or "Femininity is generally socially constructed and often distinct from biological female sex." Or some variation of that, if we are not going to mention in the intro that research on femininity has been linked to biology as much as to social roles. 50.16.132.13 (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The WHO is a working definition, the definition in the dictionary is still accurate, and different from the WHO definition. USchick (talk) 04:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The "socially constructed" sentence is from a college sociology textbook which devotes several pages to discussing femininity and masculinity. The textbook states unambiguously that femininity is socially defined and not biologically defined: "Often we mistakenly attribute masculinity and femininity to biology, when in fact, they are socially created." This is further explained over several pages in the textbook. If you want to state the opposite, you'll need some pretty solid sources, not just a popular dictionary definition. Kaldari (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying that it doesn't matter what one or two reliable sources state in favor of femininity only being a social construct, because there are reliable sources that state the opposite. Nor did I argue against it being a social construct. I argued against it only being defined as a social construct, when even some researchers state that some feminine traits/qualities are or may be due to biology. Research has definitely shown that men and women generally don't think the same, and enough research suggests that this may not simply be due to society. I don't need to provide any sources for this statement; some sources are right there in the Behavior and personality section. Others are elsewhere on Wikipedia, in the related articles. And since it is mentioned there in the Behavior and personality section, showing that femininity may be defined by something other than social factors, and is subject to debate, a bit about it should clearly be included in the intro. Or the intro should clearly define femininity in more than just one way. Per WP:LEAD. Plenty of articles give different definitions of a term, and yet you and others are restricting this article to only one when there is more than one definition. Even "popular dictionary" definitions would be considered solid enough sources to define femininity in another way in the intro. I know how Wikipedia works on that matter and cannot be fooled whatsoever. What defines femininity is clearly debated and debatable and yet you and others are arguing to define femininity in only one way. Many researchers state that gender is not only socially constructed, which is one (if not the main) reason why transgender people are not simply seen as insane by the medical community. Read up on gender identity disorder, why don't you. Listen to what Chaz Bono has to say. Research has shown that biology may be the reason that some transgender people "feel like men" or "feel like women" -- that it is biology of the mind that has made them more inclined to identify by the social constructs "man" or "woman." So that definitely blows your "femininity is only socially constructed" definition out of the water. WHO's definition as well.

I'm pretty sure that if I took this to the wider Wikipedia community, they would agree with me and the other editors who have wanted a more inclusive intro. People have been complaining about the intro being limited for the longest now, and look at it. Still limited and biased. Biased because there is obvious debate about what defines femininity, and the intro only gives one side's definition of it. And while I agree that society largely defines it (femininity), I certainly don't believe that the way women feel, think, and act is only due to society. The same goes for men. And neither do many researchers. There's a reason most people fall into their assigned gender, while the minority fall outside of it (transgender). The only people I can see as only wanting femininity to be defined as socially constructed are feminists, and I see we have a few at this article. 50.19.199.152 (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The article Definition describes different kinds of definitions. Intensional definition describes the essence of something and a Working definition is the WHO definition. Perhaps we should start with that and say that there are two definitions. USchick (talk) 06:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

@Anon: Our article doesn't state that femininity is has nothing to do with biology, it states that femininity is distinct from biology. Nothing you have argued refutes that. The point you are arguing against is a straw man—no one is claiming that femininity has nothing to do with biology. The traits of femininity are mostly to accentuate or exaggerate differences between the sexes that exist biologically, but the specific ways in which these biological differences are exaggerated or idealized in a given culture are defined by society. We don't have a gene for wearing make-up for example. Kaldari (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

While I don’t agree that femininity is simply a social construct, I don’t necessarily object to that claim being in the lead. The fact of the matter is that having such a blatantly false claim in the lead, which most people know not to be true, serves to discredit what's in the rest of the article. And because people won’t be taking the rest of the article as seriously I then don’t have to worry so much about what is in in. In short, those who read the lead will know who has written the article and what their slant is.

The fact of the matter is that what we have come to describe as “feminine behaviour”, as distinct from “masculine behaviour”, has arisen from our observation of the general behavioural differences between females and males. The main reason for the substantial behavioural differences amongst females, such as greater gentleness, empathy and sensitivity has its roots in the brain structure of females as compared to males. Therefore our notion of what it means to be feminine is not simply a social construct but has a significant biological origin.

The rejection of this truth by some has its origin in the fact that for some individuals, their masculine or feminine behaviour does not match what is typical for their male or female physical biology. For this reason they wish to separate, in their own minds an in the minds of society in general, femininity from femaleness and masculinity from maleness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.24.50 (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, I believe the point you are arguing is a straw man. The intro says, "Femininity is socially constructed and distinct from biological female sex." That pretty much says it has nothing to do with biology, no matter how you look at it. You already stated, "The textbook states unambiguously that femininity is socially defined and not biologically defined." Therefore, it is claiming that femininity has nothing to do with biology. Others at this talk page have basically stated the same thing. So stop playing word games, and essentially insulting my intelligence. If I were to say "women are idiots," that would be taken to mean "all women are idiots," would it not? And in the same vein that I wouldn't need to specifically and insultingly state "all women are idiots" to get across my point, the intro does not have to specifically state "femininity has nothing to do with biology" to get across its point. The wording "Femininity is socially constructed and distinct from biological female sex." gets across that point just fine. If it were in any way ambiguous, I would not have "interpreted" the line the way that I did. And to be even clearer, what I am arguing for (which is already explicitly stated above) is the representation of both sides in the intro. And since you state that no one is saying that femininity has nothing to do with biology, altering the intro in the way (or similar to the way) I suggested should not be a problem. There should be no problem in making it so that the intro does not send the message that femininity has nothing to do with biology. Your wording only defines femininity as a social construct without offering that femininity may be due to biological factors, as many researchers believe that the formation of masculine and feminine identities are due to both (the WHO calling gender a social construct is especially debated). Your intro also states that it is distinct from biological sex, when, yes, my arguments refute that. In fact, if you want to play the "not specifically stated" game, neither of your sources specifically state that the two terms (femininity and biological sex) are distinct from each other, as already pointed out by USchick in the #Lead discussion when referencing the WHO source. Let's be clear here that "can be distinct" is not necessarily the same thing as "is distinct." Personally, I fail to see how they are distinct when, as I mentioned earlier, most people fall comfortably into their assigned gender. But this isn't about my personal opinion. It's about what researchers state. And they are divided on what forms femininity, as shown in this very article and by the following sources:

Reinventing the sexes: the biomedical construction of femininity and masculinity Race, gender, and science. (1997) From Page 2: "We will also see how the conceptual division between masculinity and femininity has caused difficulties in scientists recent biological research."

From Page 4: "Most feminists subscribed to the thesis of Simone de Beauvoir, who argued that 'women are not born, but made to be women,' suggesting that only sociocultural factors affect the development of femininity in behavior. This thesis was contradicted by knowledge developed through biomedical research. Since 1959, biomedical researchers have described how the sexual organs bathe the embryo with hormones in the womb, resulting in the birth of an individual with a male or female brain." More? Okay, here's another line from Page 4: Scientists identified a distinctively male or female brain to predict future behavioral development in a masculine or feminine direction. Over the past thirty years, they have increasingly claimed types of behavior in males and females, both animal and human, are affected by prenatal hormones. In humans, such behavior varies from sexual orientation, career choice or mothering, to mathematical and verbal skills. Most effects of hormones on differentiating brains turned out to be categorically divided according to traditional perceptions of feminine and masculine characteristics: Male hormones potentiated future behavior; female hormones potentiated male behavior."

Masculinity and Femininity in the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A. (2010) On Page 30, the text quite clearly asks: How important are biology and social influences in the development of masculinity and femininity?

Gender, power, and communication in human relationships. (1995) On Chapter 14, Page 333: "One's masculinity or femininity became known as a sex role, a gender role, or simply as gender that could vary independently from one's biological sex. When the term sex is used, it refers generally to one's biological or physical self; gender points to the psychological, social, and interactive characteristics. Social scientists soon learned that although gender and sex could diverge, they tended to covary. Women are more likely to be feminine than are men, and men are more likely to be masculine than are women. The close affiliation between biological sex and psychological gender has been explained in a variety of ways. MacCorquodale (1989) summarized the dialogue: The relative weight given by a belief system to social versus biological factors results in an ideology that maximizes or minimizes sex differences. Within both feminist and traditional systems of belief, there is a division between those who believe the influences of biology are indirect and mediated by society (social constructionists) and those who believe that direct effects of biology endow each gender with certain essential characteristics (biological essentialism). (Sayers, 1982, p.5). The nature versus nurture question has been debated extensively; it is continually revitalized by new research findings."

Sexual politics: an introduction. (2000) Page 37: "Oakley's sex/gender dichotomy had a considerable influence on a generation of sociologists who were encouraged to focus on the cultural constructions of masculinity and femininity - prising open and shedding critical light on the ways in which the 'norms' of masculine and feminine behavior are regulated, policed and reproduced in our society - and the ways in which power structures, relations of power, and inequalities are justified and legitimised by reference to these cultural constructions of masculinity and femininity. The sex (biology)/gender (culture) dichotomy is still a commonly cited distinction but has recently come in for some rigorous criticism by queer theorists and other postmodernists who are unhappy with what they see as a dangerous simplification."

So, yes, what defines femininity - biological or sociological factors, or both - is heavily debated (there is more of the same under different searches and in recent medical journals). And as such, there shouldn't be only one side presented in the intro -- that femininity is socially constructed and distinct from biological female sex -- when that one side is not absolute. The previously suggested intro, shown in #The lead sentence section, is more accurate: Femininity (also called womanliness) refers to qualities and behaviors generally associated with women and girls, whether they be inborn or socialized. In most cultures positive feminine features include gentleness, patience and kindness. Femininity is distinct from femaleness, which is a biological and physiological classification concerned with the reproductive system." But since it seems the only way I will get the current intro to be neutral in its presentation is to bring the wider community in on this, I'm starting a WP:RfC below. 50.16.70.124 (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should biological factors also be mentioned in the intro as a possible cause of femininity?

What should and shouldn't be in the intro of this article has been extensively debated, as the talk page can attest to.

Currently, one view is that the intro is fine as it is, and is not necessarily biased. The other view is that it is biased, as well as narrow, because it only represents one side of a debated topic. Right now, it defines femininity as only socially-constructed and distinct from the female biological sex, when researchers suggest that biology is (or may be) a factor in masculine and feminine identities/traits as well.

Basically, outside opinions are needed on this. The most recent discussions about it are above and below this RfC post. 50.16.70.124 (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Request for quotes - The lead certainly reads as if the article is exclusively devoted to the meaning of feminity as a "social construct" to the exclusion of any physical/biological/genetic meanings of the word. To help uninvolved editors provide an opinion on this RfC: can editors who propose to expand the scope of the article to include physical/biological/genetic meanings please provide some quotes from sources that define (or merely use) "feminity" to include physical/biological/genetic meanings? Also, if there are significant sources that discuss the concept for non-human animals, that may be relevant. The sources should be high quality reliable sources, preferably scholarly. Please provide quotes, not just a link to Google Books. If the quotes are already above in this Talk page, please reproduce them here so the conversation can be consolidated. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Noleander. I provided quotes, page numbers, and the year of the books in the primary section above this one, not just the Google links, to show that femininity is debated among researchers and others as either sociological, biological, or both. It seems like a waste of space to again reproduce them here (I know how having an RfC too cluttered can deter others from weighing in, and I may get less replies), but if you feel it will help, here they are again:

Reinventing the sexes: the biomedical construction of femininity and masculinity Race, gender, and science. (1997) From Page 2: "We will also see how the conceptual division between masculinity and femininity has caused difficulties in scientists recent biological research."

From Page 4: "Most feminists subscribed to the thesis of Simone de Beauvoir, who argued that 'women are not born, but made to be women,' suggesting that only sociocultural factors affect the development of femininity in behavior. This thesis was contradicted by knowledge developed through biomedical research. Since 1959, biomedical researchers have described how the sexual organs bathe the embryo with hormones in the womb, resulting in the birth of an individual with a male or female brain." More? Okay, here's another line from Page 4: Scientists identified a distinctively male or female brain to predict future behavioral development in a masculine or feminine direction. Over the past thirty years, they have increasingly claimed types of behavior in males and females, both animal and human, are affected by prenatal hormones. In humans, such behavior varies from sexual orientation, career choice or mothering, to mathematical and verbal skills. Most effects of hormones on differentiating brains turned out to be categorically divided according to traditional perceptions of feminine and masculine characteristics: Male hormones potentiated future behavior; female hormones potentiated male behavior."

Masculinity and Femininity in the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A. (2010) On Page 30, the text quite clearly asks: How important are biology and social influences in the development of masculinity and femininity?

Gender, power, and communication in human relationships. (1995) On Chapter 14, Page 333: "One's masculinity or femininity became known as a sex role, a gender role, or simply as gender that could vary independently from one's biological sex. When the term sex is used, it refers generally to one's biological or physical self; gender points to the psychological, social, and interactive characteristics. Social scientists soon learned that although gender and sex could diverge, they tended to covary. Women are more likely to be feminine than are men, and men are more likely to be masculine than are women. The close affiliation between biological sex and psychological gender has been explained in a variety of ways. MacCorquodale (1989) summarized the dialogue: The relative weight given by a belief system to social versus biological factors results in an ideology that maximizes or minimizes sex differences. Within both feminist and traditional systems of belief, there is a division between those who believe the influences of biology are indirect and mediated by society (social constructionists) and those who believe that direct effects of biology endow each gender with certain essential characteristics (biological essentialism). (Sayers, 1982, p.5). The nature versus nurture question has been debated extensively; it is continually revitalized by new research findings."

Sexual politics: an introduction. (2000) Page 37: "Oakley's sex/gender dichotomy had a considerable influence on a generation of sociologists who were encouraged to focus on the cultural constructions of masculinity and femininity - prising open and shedding critical light on the ways in which the 'norms' of masculine and feminine behavior are regulated, policed and reproduced in our society - and the ways in which power structures, relations of power, and inequalities are justified and legitimised by reference to these cultural constructions of masculinity and femininity. The sex (biology)/gender (culture) dichotomy is still a commonly cited distinction but has recently come in for some rigorous criticism by queer theorists and other postmodernists who are unhappy with what they see as a dangerous simplification."

There is also mention of this debate in the Femininity#Behavior and personality section. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that biological factors do indeed deserve a mention in the lead and that the statement denying them should be removed. There are many physical traits that are considered feminine, such as wide-set eyes, a strong waist-to-hip ratio, and breasts. Much of femininity is culturally determined, but stating that it has no biological component is misleading. The real problem here may be that there is more than one way to understand the word "femininity." "Gender," for example, has about five correct definitions. The WHO, for example, defines "gender" as a social construct, but most dictionaries list it as a synonym for "sex." Similarly, in common speech (and dictionaries), people think of "femininity" as "womanliness," etc. in general. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Darkfrog24. Below in the subsection, Noleander also agreed with specifically mentioning biological factors in the lead (which I'm sure you already know). It's just that I moved the extended discussion out of the RfC so that it wouldn't deter outsiders from commenting in the RfC (being too long and all). And I've definitely already brought up the narrow WHO definition of gender. Thank you again. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Continued discussion

I think everyone is in agreement that biology forms a part of what we call 'femininity'. So I'm not really sure why we need an RfC to determine that. The question isn't whether biology influences female behavior and actions, because of course it does. If you read the intro, you see two 'concepts':

• female gender (aka female biological sex)
• femininity (socially-defined thing that people equate with femaleness)

Are high heels feminine? Are they biological? What about lace? Silk? Lipstick? High-pitched voices? Intelligence? Strength? Blonde hair?

Some things are considered feminine but have no relationship to how a particular person develops biologically. They might stem from certain biological traits, but are they realistically biological? 36-24-36? How many women are size zero? I hope you understand what is *REALLY* being said when we have the phrase "distinct from the female biological sex" in the lead. -- Avanu (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The RfC is needed because the intro currently only presents femininity as a social construct, when that is debated. This is not about material things that are called feminine. This is about women generally thinking and acting a certain way, which has been called femininity, and what makes a person feminine. What makes a person feminine -- biological or sociological factors, or both -- is heavily debated. The sources I provided show that. The intro, however? Does not reflect that, and only positions femininity as a social construct. Your description of femininity above -- as a "socially-defined thing" -- is exactly what I'm talking about. Many researchers do not agree with that point of view -- that femininity is simply a "socially-defined thing." And one of your questions (intelligence, not the high-heel silliness, etc. you have thrown about) is something researchers are trying to find out when it comes to its relation to biological sex (strength, as in physical strength, is something they've connected more so to men for the longest now, but neither intelligence nor strength are significantly what the masculine/feminine debate is about).

If everyone here is in agreement that biology forms a part of what we call femininity, then there shouldn't be a problem with putting the biology aspect in the intro. Because, no, it's not currently there, and it's no misinterpretation of mine either. If it were, there wouldn't be so many complaints about the intro (as recently as an IP who responded before me above). So no thank you, I don't need a lesson on gender and gender categories. Already well-versed on the topic. I hope you understand that your intro is currently biased, and that I asked for unbiased opinions regarding this RfC (AKA outside opinions). I'm not keen on people who are defending the intro cluttering the RfC, which is meant for outside opinions. 50.16.70.124 (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

To clarify what I mean again about, I'm going to reiterate the two 'concepts':

• female gender (aka female biological sex)
• femininity (socially-defined thing that people equate with femaleness)

I've written an alternative lead for you, and this idea that you need to *only* have people comment here who never have commented before is just silly. I think we're in agreement substantially or entirely, it is simply a matter of phrasing and comprehension. As I said above, everyone is in agreement that femininity is related to "female biological sex", but I think you're looking at this like the Shadow equating to a Bit of the object casting it. If we imagine a Venn Diagram of these 2 concepts, we will see some overlap, of course. But the degree to which these two concepts overlap is determined by a society. They may overlap 100%, or they might not overlap at all (unlikely). But they are not the same concept, and femininity is not 'gender + X, Y, and Z'. To address something you mentioned above, Intelligence in relation to one's gender is not a function of femininity. HOWEVER, playing dumb so that guys will like you or feel superior, is a function of femininity (especially relating to masculinity in this example). Femininity is like the adjective describing the female. We don't say "see how female she is", but we say "see how feminine she is".

Alternative lead wording: "Femininity is a set of roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a society generally associates with women and girls. Femininity is socially constructed and although it can encompass traits found in the female biological gender, femininity is a distinct concept."

-- Avanu (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, I see you as trying to work with me, so I do thank you for that. As for reiterating, you can reiterate the two 'concepts,' but it does not negate the fact that the current lead is biased and leaves out the fact that femininity may be due to biological factors. I will also reiterate that I don't need a lesson on gender or gender categories, so please stop seemingly trying to teach me. I never stated that femininity and female biological sex are the same thing, and have clearly demonstrated an understanding of the two terms. I did state, "Personally, I fail to see how they are distinct when, as I mentioned earlier, most people fall comfortably into their assigned gender." But that is not the same as saying they are the same. That was me basically speaking of the overlap you mentioned. My main point is that the current intro is not neutral because there is no mention of biology being a cause of femininity, and because there is clear debate about this topic, which leads to my other point: Some researchers and others are in disagreement with some statements on this talk page that femininity is mostly or only socially-constructed; some believe that sociological and biological factors are equally responsible for creating femininity. You yourself also conflate "female gender" with "female biological sex," even though "gender" and "sex" are distinguished enough (even in the current lead). But then you distinguish it later, at the bottom of your statement there, which is odd. But, yes, you speak of an overlap. And by mention of an overlap, we are on the same page. Because I am arguing for mention of the biology overlap -- that biology may play a part in femininity. I'm also not sure why you and Kaldari keep bringing up material things in reference to masculinity and femininity, when, in actuality, masculinity and femininity can apply to non-human animals as well. The first source I listed above demonstrates that. So all this talk of high heels and makeup is not needed. I am not thinking of masculinity and femininity in terms of material things, and the sources I listed aren't focusing on that either. What I am speaking of (and the sources as well) is personality and behavior. While that may involve high heels and makeup for some, that is beside the point, because masculinity and femininity have a lot more to them than just the material things associated with them. Your suggested alternate wording still reads a little too biased, I feel, in light of the debate about it among researchers, scholars, and the like. I'm also not fond of the wording "female biological gender" when we are trying to separate "sex" from "gender." So I propose the following alternative lead wordings, though I still don't view the two things as distinct as you make them out to be:

Femininity is a set of roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a society generally associates with girls and women. Though largely socially constructed and distinct from the female biological sex, femininity may encompass biological factors as well. What traits are associated with femininity usually depend on a variety of social and cultural factors, and often vary depending on location and context. Women, men, and transgender people can all exhibit feminine traits.

Or...

Femininity is a set of roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a society generally associates with girls and women, whether they be inborn or socialized. Femininity is distinct from the female biological sex, as women, men, and transgender people can all exhibit feminine traits. What traits are associated with femininity largely depend on a variety of social and cultural factors, and often vary depending on location and context.

As for commenting in the RfC, I never stated *only* uninvolved editors should comment in the RfC. I stated that, "I asked for unbiased opinions regarding this RfC (AKA outside opinions). I'm not keen on people who are defending the intro cluttering the RfC, which is meant for outside opinions." And I mean that. RfC is indeed for outside opinions, though involved editors may comment there. I was saying that I already know how you and some others at this talk page think on the topic and that I didn't create this RfC to hear those same opinions again. Outside editors can simply look at the talk page discussions that I directed them to. They already have enough to read from that alone, and don't need to read through the same thing again. I have definitely witnessed how having an RfC that is cluttered or deemed "too long" makes others not want to weigh in. That's why I moved this particular discussion here. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support changing lead - The sources above definitely indicate there are a variety of views of "femininity", perhaps even a sharp disagreement. Clearly the lead needs to reflect the various definitions. The sentence from the proposal above "Though largely socially constructed and distinct from the female biological sex, femininity may encompass biological factors as well" seems like a very good characterization, and should probably be in the first 2 or 3 sentences. I understand that some editors may find the clean definition "femininity is a social construct, period" very tempting, but the article must follow the sources (editors cannot pick-and-choose which sources' definitions to use, and cannot rely on their own viewpoint). If the sources provide a variety of interpretations to "femininity", so must the lead paragraph. --Noleander (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again, Noleander. I think I prefer my first alternate lead proposal, too. And what you stated about femininity referring to non-human animals may also be relevant enough to place in the lead if we can get access to reliable sources specifically addressing that; we likely could even have an entire section on it, but I suppose that is for another discussion. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I think the debate is oversimplified here. Obviously femininity encompasses biological traits and factors. That doesn't mean that femininity isn't socially defined. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. I would be perfectly happy with the sentence "Though socially defined and distinct from the female biological sex, femininity may encompasses both social and biological factors." I also don't see any reason to modify the sentence "What traits are associated with femininity...". Kaldari (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That is an absolutely perfect way to state it. -- Avanu (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the debate here is not oversimplified in my opinion. It's overcomplicated. There is nothing at all wrong with stating that femininity may be due to biological factors. And since what defines femininity -- sociological or biological, or both -- is heavily debated, both should be mentioned in the lead. Kaldari, you state that, "Obviously femininity encompasses biological traits and factors." But my problem with the current intro is that it does not state that at all, and definitely implies that femininity is only a social construct (if not outright saying it). I am not the only one who currently sees it that way, which makes it a problem. Really, what is wrong with my proposal? Why is it so difficult to just instate one of them, preferably the first one? I don't see why "largely" should be taken out of the "Though socially defined" sentence. In fact, it makes less sense to exclude "largely" when we are trying to say that femininity is not only due to social factors. If femininity is mostly due to sociological factors, which is disputed by some researchers, then it makes sense to say "largely" because it certainly isn't "all" or "only." And "mostly" is more so a WP:Weasel word. The same goes for the "What traits are associated with femininity" sentence. I added in "usually" for the same reason. But going back to "largely," it is also more neutral on the subject because, again, what defines femininity is heavily debated. Femininity being "largely" or "mostly" due to sociological factors is not entirely agreed upon. Judging by the sources I provided and more that can be found, it's not even mostly agreed upon. Different sources report different things, however. And as Noleander stated above, "editors cannot pick-and-choose which sources' definitions to use, and cannot rely on their own viewpoint." If there was some authoritative, widely-held definition of femininity, then maybe. But there isn't. WHO's definition of gender isn't even supported by most researchers today. We should be trying to accurately reflect the different interpretations/definitions of "femininity." I'm only agreeing to use "largely" as a compromise; it might also be because I happen to believe that "femininity" encompasses social factors more so than biological when you throw in the material items associated with it, but my own personal belief is not what is driving me. Having an accurate, more neutral lead is. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding what the IP 209.226.31.161 said, isn't "female biological sex" exactly the same as "female gender"? Sex (without a qualifier) is a word that encompasses several concepts, one of which is gender. But "sex" isn't as specific. -- Avanu (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, "sex" usually refers to the biological category and "gender" usually refers to the social category. I think the proposal discussed above is a good possible solution. Alternatively, I think we could remove the phrase "socially constructed" and just say "femininity is a distinct concept from biological sex," which is true regardless of any overlap. This way it wouldn't comment at all on the issue of biological or social causes for femininity. Then details about the actual debate can be left to the article body to be covered in-depth.--Aronoel (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that might be a reasonable compromise to just leave that word out and still indicate it is clearly a separate concept. This whole discussion strikes me as a thing we all clearly understand, it is simply a matter of describing it to everyone's satisfaction. -- Avanu (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to get off track, but is anyone interested in having 2 clear definitions instead of trying to combine them into a confusing one? Definition: Intensional definition describes the essence of something and a Working definition is the WHO definition. USchick (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment about "femininity is a distinct concept from biological sex," – We already went around in circles about this before. There is no proof of this. USchick (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

USchick....

Female = one who is female.

Femininity <> Female

i.e. they are distinct concepts.

Logic, not original research. Seriously I think everyone 'gets it', but some are just being stubborn. This is one of those things that are so basic and well known that it's incontrovertible. -- Avanu (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The length of this discussion should tell you that it's not that basic. USchick (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It is like people arguing over whether a shadow is real or not. -- Avanu (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel, which proposal is that? Mine, or Kaldari's reworking of mine? I stated above that I'm not really for leaving out the words "largely" and "usually," and why that is. I also can't agree with just moving "socially constructed" out of the intro, because I feel that the fact that femininity may be due to social construction, biology or both should be mentioned there in the intro. WP:LEAD definitely goes over what should be mentioned in the intro of articles, and this should be mentioned there from what I interpret (the lower body of the article is what is used to go into deeper discussion about this debate). Plus, leaving it as "femininity is a distinct concept from biological sex" can still give the impression that femininity has nothing to do with biology, especially with the rest of the intro only mentioning sociological factors: "What traits are associated with femininity usually depend on a variety of social and cultural factors, and often vary depending on location and context."

Avanu, I'm not being stubborn. I've made my reasons clear above, and have made clear that researchers are not entirely in agreement with your definitions of things (definitely not sure about your latest example to USchick, but I ask again that you please stop with the lessons). It's not that difficult to go by different sources and not define femininity as absolutely one thing more than the other. But, as shown above, I am willing to go with "largely"...just as long as there is no implication of "only." 209.226.31.161 (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The article isn't titled "Scientific Definition of Femininity". Society-at-large has a concept of what it is, and its exceedingly clear that we all agree that at the very least, it is largely defined by society. Of course it contains things that are based in female biology, but since it is not anchored to that, it is clearly distinct. We don't need scads of researchers for us to see what is or is not considered feminine. The continual debate over obvious things is what makes me question either our communication skills or our potential stubborness. -- Avanu (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Its like the difference between saying "milk" and something is "milky". The concept of milky came from milk, but is not something equivalent to milk, and in fact, since it is a separated concept, could change over time. I feel like its very plain and clear but it simply needs to be explained in a way that conveys it so that we are communicating it between each other. -- Avanu (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't have to be titled "Scientific Definition of Femininity" to present both viewpoints. So I'm not sure what you are getting at with that. By that same token, I can argue that this article is not titled "Social Definition of Femininity." There is NOT ONLY ONE DEFINITION OF FEMININITY! MY sources and a scad of others prove that. What don't you and others get about that? We do not get to define a lead a certain way based on our personal beliefs, not mostly anyway. We first and foremost go by WP:Reliable sources here at Wikipedia. And, yes, scads of researchers say that femininity is (or may be) due to biological factors as much as sociological factors. Saying "we don't need scads of researchers for us to see what is or is not considered feminine" is rooted in personal interpretation, because "what is and what is not feminine" can be subjective, as this article's lead points out (one of the few things it actually gets right). Wikipedia needs reliable sources to define terms, and that is what I am going by. Not your and others' beliefs/personal definitions. I am not the one who objected to "largely." You and Kaldari did, by not accepting my proposal, which is pure stubborness if I have ever seen it (since we're on the subject). All I am asking for is that the intro of this article be neutral or somewhat neutral in its presentation of femininity, and you and others are fighting tooth and nail against it, even in the face of reliable sources. I don't need your personal definitions of femininity, because that means squat on Wikipedia. Saying "though largely socially constructed and distinct from the female biological sex, femininity may encompass biological factors as well" is a perfectly reasonable compromise, because it maintains your and others' beliefs that femininity has more to do with social factors while also acknowledging that it may be due to biological factors. The same goes for "what traits are associated with femininity usually depend on a variety of social and cultural factors..." Good grief. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

All that said, if I have to compromise again, which it seems that I do, I am hesitantly willing to go along with Kaldari's reworking of my proposal. More so the "socially constructed" line. Because I consider the "what traits are associated with femininity" line to be inaccurate, even though slightly inaccurate, without the word "usually" in there. It does not make sense to reestablish the traits as only sociological/cultural when we've already made it clear that they may be biological as well. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Your phrase above demonstrates the problem: "maintains your and others' beliefs that femininity has more to do with social factors". I don't hold a belief that femininity has more or less to do with social factors or biological factors. What I *am* saying is that what people call feminine is defined by society. I've repeatedly acknowledged that there are biological factors that are a part of femininity. But the boundaries of what is called feminine are created by society. See the distinction? -- Avanu (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, nothing I have brought to this talk page has been "the problem." The problem has been with the intro, for some time now, as demonstrated by this talk page. From what you have stated, to me it is clear that you hold a belief. You keep stating it (that belief) without backing it up with sources. You have also fought to keep a narrow definition of femininity in the lead, despite reliable sources. Yes of course what people call feminine is defined by society. But what people call feminine is also defined by biology, and not just by researchers either (who, I might add, are also a part of society). When a heterosexual man sees the body of a naked woman, that is feminine to him. He defines her body, as well as her personality, to be feminine. See what is not a distinction to many? Like I stated, I don't need a lesson. So stop it. If anything I have familiarized you with the distinction between "sex" and "gender" (as Aronoel clarified above). It's time to move on, as I have recently stated that "I am hesitantly willing to go along with Kaldari's reworking of my proposal. More so the 'socially constructed' line." 209.226.31.161 (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

When I say "the problem", I simply mean that you seem to feel I hold a belief that femininity is ONLY based on social things, not biological things, and I don't have any such belief. -- Avanu (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I believe you feel that femininity is MOSTLY based on social things, and that this is clouding your judgment. Your comments showcase that. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, your statement about me is mistaken. I do not believe "femininity is MOSTLY based on social things". It isn't about me thinking its more social or more biological, I keep trying to explain the distinction and you keep missing it. I don't have a judgement here. Clearly people make a distinction between what is female and what is feminine. 'Female' equates 100% to things relating to biological femaleness. 'Femininity' equates to whatever the hell people decide to make it. -- Avanu (talk) 03:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Section break

Many of the things people associate with femininity are actually railing against biology. Look at foot binding in China. Women have smaller feet than men, but do they have smaller feet than children? That was the goal, to fight tooth and nail against biology by conforming to an impossible ideal.

On the issue of intelligence earlier, you wanted to turn it into a comparative biology discussion, who is smarter -- men or women? But the question for an article on femininity is not who is smarter, but why do women feel compelled to 'play dumb'? Biologically, women are just as smart as men. But femininity asks for a different outcome, but if society decides that smart women are sexy, and in many cases it does, then it is chic and feminine to be that.

It seems super clear to me where the factors that make up femininity arise. Some come from biological differences, some from unrealistic expectations of biology, some from just fads and fashion and societal expectations. But ultimately what gets put in the femininity pot is decided by society. -- Avanu (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to Kaldari's version before. I support using that version, but I still think avoiding the issue in the lead altogether could be the best solution. It's a complicated debate that is difficult to summarize, it may confuse readers who may already have trouble understanding the female and femininity distinction, and most importantly, the controversy only applies to femininity and behavior. That's why currently it's only mentioned in that section. Obviously there is no controversy about the biological vs social influences of makeup and clothes. Also, I just want to point out that there have already been a lot of authoritative sources discussed explaining the femininity and feminine distinction, so that is not OR--Aronoel (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, I don't see why this "further discussion" section is needed. The resolution is taking place above. This section is just more of your personal opinions about femininity. If you wanted to create a "section break," you could have just done that. On the issue of intelligence earlier, no, I did not want to turn this into a comparative biology discussion of who is smarter -- men or women. You did. You keep bringing up high heels, makeup, intelligence and "playing dumb" as if the above discussions by me are at all about that. It isn't. Wikipedia is not a forum, per WP:NOTAFORUM, and I do not want to discuss this with you. I want the intro to represent biological and sociological factors as defining femininity, which is backed up by reliable sources. Not some comparative biology discussion based on our own personal opinions. Not some comparative biology discussion at all.

Aronoel, neither my nor Kaldari's version is confusing. Nor is it a difficult debate to summarize. Most readers are not so unintelligent that they won't understand the simple sentence proposed by me or Kaldari. I also mentioned WP:LEAD. Well, per WP:LEAD, it should be in the intro. Per WP:LEAD, specific mention of the debate should even be in the intro. All I am arguing for, however, is representation of biological and sociological factors in the lead. I don't buy your explanation for why this is not currently mentioned in the lead. And leaving out "socially-constructed"? I explained above that it still leaves in the implication that femininity is only defined by society. So, no, I won't agree to that. As for "a lot of authoritative sources explaining the femininity and feminine distinction," I've read through all of you guys' back and forth, and all I saw being used for that was the WHO, which gets "gender" wrong when it comes to what most researchers have to state on the matter. And WHO also doesn't use the word "distinct," which was my point on that. Now can we please get back to the matter at hand? The compromise. We stated that Kaldari's version is fine, so let's go with that. And keep in mind my objection to removing "usually" from the "traits" line. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I not only object to the word, “largely” in the phrase “Though largely socially constructed” as it is POV, I reject the claim that it is a “social construct”. While dress and some behaviours may be socially constructed, the phrase suggests that the brain structure of females has played no role in the behaviour that we have come to describe as feminine.

We all agree that the word “femininity” is socially defined, given that the every word in the English language is social defined so why are we stating that in the lead? What is not socially defined is what we have come to call feminine behaviour because much of it is an outgrowth of the nature of the female brain. Of course I am not including the trivial behaviours such as styles of dress and so forth.

I like the wording “femininity is a distinct concept from biological sex”, but if social influences are mentioned then biological influences must also be mentioned. I support the idea of leaving that discussion to the body of the article. That being said the previous version of the lead which read “Femininity is distinct from femaleness, which is a biological and physiological classification concerned with the reproductive system and secondary sex characteristics.” was just fine and said the same thing.

Thanks for your work 209.226.31.161.

Dave3457 (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not typical female behaviour is biologically determined or socially determined is irrelevant. Having breasts is biologically determined and included in what is defined as "femininity". That doesn't mean that biology determines femininity. Biology defines what is male and female. Society takes these definitions, polarizes and exaggerates them, and uses them to create a definition of femininity. Kaldari (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm being a bit too defensive here. I think we actually agree on a lot of points. We just need to find wording that expresses things in a way that is satisfying to everyone (or almost everyone). Kaldari (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Sociology

I finally got ahold of the Encyclopedia of Sociology (2000), which is a well-respected source and quite comprehensive (3481 pages!), so I could see what it has to say on the matter. It actually has an entire section titled "Femininity/Masculinity". The section starts out by saying:

Femininity and masculinity or one's gender identity (Burke, Stets and Pirog-Good 1988; Spence 1985) refers to the degree to which persons see themselves as masculine or feminine given what it means to be a man or woman in society. Femininity and masculinity are rooted in the social (one's gender) rather than the biological (one's sex). Societal members decide what being male or female means (e.g., dominant or passive, brave or emotional), and males will generally respond by defining themselves as masculine while females will generally define themselves as feminine. Because these are social definitions, however, it is possible for one to be female and see herself as masculine or male and see himself as feminine.

Later, it goes on to say: "We now understand that femininity and masculinity are not innate but are based upon social and cultural conditions." This is pretty close to our current wording, and a strong endorsement of the idea that femininity is socially defined. I think what is missing from the explanation is simply that biological factors can influence what society defines as "feminine" and even be included in the definition, but ultimately the definition itself is decided by society. There is no biological definition of femininity. This is why scientists don't talk about non-human animals being "feminine" or "masculine". Kaldari (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, you have found another source that supports your view regarding the nature vs nurture debate. Given that there are other sources that don't support your view on the subject, I don't understand your point. This debate is not about who is right but about whether both views should be presented or neither of them. And if presented, how. Dave3457 (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The above comment suffers from the same problem as the IP user. This isn't about nature vs. nurture. Society doesn't define what is 'female'. It is just biological. Society does, however, decide what is considered 'feminine'. There is a very easy to see distinction and for some reason it just isn't being properly communicated between these two 'sides'.

Of course, you can make an argument that anything anyone does is partly decided by our DNA, but that's another debate really. What we consider beauty, for example, is part DNA and part related to a zillion other socially constructed ideas. -- Avanu (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, you are mistaken, society defines a female as “a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and normally having a vagina, a uterus and ovaries” Dave3457 (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, this isn't just "a source". It's one of the most highly respected sources in the field. As the American Library Association states: "Several one-volume encyclopedias on the subfields of sociology have been published since 1993. To date, however, there are no multivolume works with anything like the thoroughness and scholarly rigor that characterize this set. There is no question but that the Encyclopedia of Sociology is likely to be the definitive encyclopedia of sociology for the next generation." Given that this work devotes 9 pages to discussing femininity and does not mention any controversy about how it is defined, this seems to indicate that there is a mainstream consensus. Secondly, my point is that I think we can actually improve on this definition by incorporating some of the ideas expressed in the discussions above, although not in a way that contradicts the mainstream consensus. Perhaps there are other fringe views that can be discussed in the article, but I think the lead should reflect the predominant view in this case. Kaldari (talk) 04:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, While there may be other fringe views, the four independent sources cited above are not fringe and must be respected. Your argument suggests to me that this issue should be left to the body of the article. Also I do not agree that there is a mainstream consensus, although I do believe there is a consensus about what is deemed politically correct.

Dave3457 (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for looking the definition up in the Encyclopedia of Sociology, I'm actually a little surprised it so strongly rejects biology as a part of the concept of femininity. Considering the authority of this source, I feel a lot less comfortable removing "socially constructed" from the lead or adding something about biological traits to it. Now I'm not really sure how we're going to find an acceptable compromise for everyone. --Aronoel (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, your source is just a source. First of all, it's called Encyclopedia of Sociology, so I'm not surprised it rejects biology as defining femininity. Again, it is just one source. Different sources say different things on what defines femininity. You can call it authoritative on the issue of sociology all you want, but it is not authoritative on the issue of biology or on what defines femininity. I have displayed four independent, reliable sources that show femininity is considered to be due to biological factors as well, and that there is an ongoing debate about it. I have shown that researchers most definitely believe that femininity is partly due to biology, and most certainly can provide even more sources to support my arguments. This is NOT FRINGE. Certainly not with all the proof out there about the minds of transwomen. You gathering all the sources you want to support your view doesn't negate all the sources out there that support mine. And, I'm sorry, but science trumps popular belief any day. Just because it is popularly believed that only society defines femininity...doesn't make it true. And scientific consensus rejects the idea that femininity is only due to society. Mainstream consensus doesn't make anything more correct/true, in the same way that mainstream consensus believing that pedophilia includes post-pubescent teenagers doesn't make it true; scientific/medical consensus disagrees with that, just as it disagrees with your and others' belief that only society defines femininity.

You and Avanu are really pieces of work. Playing with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines in this way, to maintain your personal beliefs in the intro. The lead should represent both sides when it comes to defining femininity (and, yes, it is clear that you all have personal beliefs on the matter, so don't bother denying it). THERE IS NOTHING AT ALL FRINGE about femininity encompassing biological factors. I have shown that. Really, first, you both agree that femininity encompasses biological factors. Now you show your true colors again by agreeing with one source that outright rejects femininity as being due to biology. Laughable. But, hey, what do I expect from feminists? Feminists are the absolute worst when it comes to editing topics on gender and gender categories, because they want to describe everything as a simple social construct (as wonderfully displayed here at this talk page). Kaldari doesn't know what she's talking about as much Avanu doesn't. She says, "There is no biological definition of femininity. This is why scientists don't talk about non-human animals being 'feminine' or 'masculine'." LOL!! Someone clearly didn't read the first source I listed. Plenty of scientists subscribe masculine/feminine identities to non-human animals and use those terms for such identities. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any "personal beliefs" on this and I'm NOT here to portray "sides". I'm actually very puzzled why this whole thing is being debated, and again I think it is simply poor communication. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT IS PARTLY BIOLOGY. So why are we arguing? You're putting a lot of words in my mouth, attributing ideas to me, and you couldn't be more mistaken. Listen for once. This is a miscommunication. WE AGREE ENTIRELY IN THE SUBSTANTIVE PART OF THIS DEFINITION. -- Avanu (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have personal beliefs to me. A little higher, you quite clearly stated, "The above comment suffers from the same problem as the IP user. This isn't about nature vs. nurture. Society doesn't define what is 'female'. It is just biological. Society does, however, decide what is considered 'feminine'." And you ARE WRONG in considering that I have a problem. You ARE WRONG in saying that "this isn't about nature vs. nurture," because it is exactly about that to many people, as the sources I displayed demonstrate. And as for society deciding what is considered feminine, while that is true, researchers state that biology also determines what is feminine. So to say that femininity doesn't have a biological definition, especially when biology seems to have made some transwomen and even gay men act in ways that biological females typically would/do, is absurd. Society didn't make them act this way. Not mostly anyway. These behaviors also have to do with biology. So for the Encyclopedia of Sociology to say that "Femininity and masculinity are rooted in the social (one's gender) rather than the biological (one's sex)." and that "We now understand that femininity and masculinity are not innate but are based upon social and cultural conditions." is absolutely ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous to use that as some authoritative source on femininity. Like I stated, science trumps popular belief any day. I'm not sure why this is being debated either. It was easy enough to just accept my compromise and leave it at that. But, no, you had to act like it was/is some controversial proposal and drag this discussion out. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

To be clear AGAIN (since I explained before), the problem is miscommunication. YOU are NOT the problem. Miscommunication is. It was not a personal attack. And AGAIN, to be clear, EVERYONE here agrees that Femininity has biological components. So... why are we arguing? -- Avanu (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the problem is that you refuse to go ahead and add biological factors for causing femininity to the intro...when this is backed up by reliable sources. That is no misommunication! 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Biology is determined by a fixed program that comes out of DNA. Hard science. Certain traits arise from DNA for women. Hard science. We end up with a FEMALE. Again, hard science. At this point, we diverge from hard science and ask, "Is she feminine?" The question indicates we ARE talking about a woman. Hard science declares 'this is a woman'. But hard science doesn't declare whether she is feminine. Are breasts feminine? Yes, sure. But what if fashion changes? What if people say women should have holes in their ears to be feminine? Or crushed feet? Or have their vagina sewn shut?

The point is, even though a LOT of what we call feminine are just biological traits, the decision whether those traits get called feminine is something society determines. So again, why are we arguing this? It's common sense. -- Avanu (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Once again, you cannot teach me about biology. I have demonstrated that I am well-informed on the subject, seemingly more than you are. "Feminine" may generally refer to "women," but some of what has come to be categorized as "feminine" is, according to research, also rooted in biology. Hard science recognizes femininity being rooted in biology. This is why hard science has shown that biological human males "who act like women" do so because they have minds that are very similar to biological human females. Society has come to consider certain behaviors "feminine" because women tend to act in these ways more so than men. Science believes this is not simply due to societal factors. There are transgender people for a reason, and existence of transgender people blows the notion that gender and gender categories are only social constructs right out of the water.

I don't know why you are bringing up all these weird scenarios, but it is not helping and does not matter. We are still debating this because you and others have yet to put into the intro that femininity encompasses biological factors. Put that into the intro, with respect to the way I proposed, and stop condescending to me, and I will be out of your hair. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is this even a debate?

I see a lot of people discussing the definition of Feminine or Femininity and I don't understand how this is so damned contentious.

It sounds like we have some people who want a scientific definition, which to me seems fine, but I think overall people know what femininity is without having to find a researcher to tell them. It is not an uncommon word. But whatever, either is fine, and should most likely be the same either way?

I keep seeing some people bring up nature versus nurture, and I wonder why. Femininity is a word whose expanse is determined not by what a woman HAS, but by what people think a woman SHOULD have. There is what makes a woman simply a woman, and there is what makes a woman a WOMAN. If that's not clear, look at Plato's theory of Forms. 'Femininity' encompasses all things that are in the ideal form. 'Female' is just female.

From Theory of Forms:

We call both the sky and blue jeans by the same color: Blue. However, clearly a pair of jeans and the sky are not the same color; moreover, the wavelengths of light reflected by the sky at every location and all the millions of blue jeans in every state of fading constantly change, and yet we somehow have a consensus of the basic form Blueness as it applies to them.

No one has ever seen a perfect circle, nor a perfectly straight line, yet everyone knows what a circle and a straight line are.

In that example, blue sky and blue jeans are real, just like biological factors are real in this discussion. But the realistic is then taken over to the consensus of the basic form and called Female, and then most polarized or super-Sized attributes are called Feminine.

• Why are we still debating? Who is saying Femininity isn't partly constructed of biological things? No one.
• Why are we still debating? Who is saying Femininity isn't partly constructed of socially-defined things? No one.
• Why are we still debating? Who is saying the boundaries of the definition of Femininity aren't made by a society? No one (as far as I can tell).

Why are we still debating? -- Avanu (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, Avanu. Since this discussion has mostly devolved into personal insults I don't think it's really worth continuing. --Aronoel (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Here you go again creating yet another discussion about it. Why is this being debated? Look above. This discussion is not worth continuing? Then fine. But you do not get to decide that the lead stays biased. Right now, it only represents the socially-constructed side, and I am not the only one to complain about that. An outsider in the RfC even stated that you are all wrong for your biased into. And until this is fixed, I will continue to complain about the intro. Trying to ignore me won't do a thing, because I will continue to complain to the wider the community about this until that intro is fixed. I will even attempt to fix it myself if ignored. Revert me all you want, but I will continue to complain and bring others in on this. Personally, I don't view calling feminists out as an insult. The sources I have provided quite clearly show where feminists stand on this issue. Insults started long before I made that comment, seeing as Avanu commonly refers to me as "a problem" and as "having a problem," and continually tries to teach me about sex and gender without even having known how "sex" and "gender" are commonly used. Why indeed are we still debating this, if there is no problem in mentioning that femininity is or may be due to biological factors? I am not the one who dragged out this discussion. Avanu is. It's easy enough to just present both sides in the lead, as Wikipedia leads are supposed to do. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You say it is biased, but I'm not seeing how it is. I don't agree that it "only represents the socially-constructed side". I think it makes it clear that Femininity is made up of biological and social factors. No one is trying to ignore you, just trying to ask you questions. Also, I'm not a feminist, nor am I am female.

Regarding use of the word problem. I have tried to explain how this is not personal, but you aren't hearing me.

"Your phrase above demonstrates the problem" - talks about 'your phrase' not YOU.

"The above comment suffers from the same problem as the IP user('s comments)" - my mistake for not making this clear enough, see parentheses I added.

"To be clear AGAIN (since I explained before), the problem is miscommunication. YOU are NOT the problem. Miscommunication is. It was not a personal attack" - I explain clearly what the issue is, how it is not a personal attack.

So, are we clear now? -- Avanu (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The intro is biased for all the reasons I and others have stated throughout this talk page. The fact that you cannot see that, and won't even follow WP:LEAD or compromise anymore, is the word ridiculous at its best and shows just how corrupt this article's editors are. I don't care for you clarifying to me that I'm not the problem or your take on femininity. Or that you aren't a feminist, especially since one or two of the three of you are feminists. I care for what WP:Reliable sources say and different reliable sources say different things about what defines femininity -- regarding both biological and sociological factors. That should be in the lead. Period. You cannot keep that out of the lead based on your own personal opinion that the lead is fine, when more than one person has stated that the lead is NOT FINE -- that it only represents the socially-constructed side. If it was clear that the lead says femininity is made up of biological and social factors, there wouldn't be any complaints. What don't you understand about that? Look past your own stubborness and realize that. The lead being problematic to more than one person speaks volumes about how un-fine it is. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that you just offered up another compromise; I will weigh in below. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Does this change work for everyone?

Changed the lead a little bit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Femininity&diff=437563511&oldid=437511598

From:

Femininity is a set of roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a society generally associates with women and girls. Femininity is socially constructed and distinct from biological female sex.

To:

Femininity is a set of roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a society generally associates with women and girls. Femininity is socially constructed, but made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors. This makes it distinct from a simple definition of biological female sex.

Does this work? -- Avanu (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That works for me. Yes, thank you, Avanu. It might need a little refining, but at least "biological factors" is specifically in there now. I'm not seeing how it is that much different than my proposals, or the reworking of my proposals, and why you couldn't just accept them, but I accept this proposal by you. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, your addition needs to be backed up by at least one of the reliable sources I provided, if not all. I'm thinking the first source I listed is best. I'll do that if no one else does. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you 209.226.31.161 for your undying effort. Everyone else should be ashamed of themselves for pushing personal bias. I hope we can all be more understanding going forward. USchick (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't have a bias. As I said before, all of this seems like common sense to me, but if it helps to modify it slightly, fine. I don't see that anything substantive has really changed. -- Avanu (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, judging by my, Dave3457's, USchick's, Noleander's, Darkfrog24's, and even an extra IP's take on the lead before your change, adding "biologically-created factors" is a substantive change. And I appreciate it. USchick, you're welcome. I also added the sources to back it up and expanded the section regarding the debate about it. Everyone agreed that the actual debate should be handled and expanded in that section, so I believe all is okay now. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Precision

Comment This is the wrong word, to start with; "femininity" is the social contruction; correspondingly, we should not be using it in Leads, or this policy (except for such articles as Coco Chanel. When this gets around to discussing "femaleness", do let us know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson, do you mean we shouldn't say "Femininity is socially constructed"? If so, maybe you are right, but others at this talk page feel that we should. And since we appear to have achieved some sort of consensus on the matter, I'd rather leave it at that instead of debating it for many more hours/days/possibly months. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds to me like they are saying "femaleness" is the better subject for an article. Its completely clear that they say "femininity" is the social contruction. -- Avanu (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what, Pmanderson is saying, and would rather Pmanderson clarify. I do know that Pmanderson primarily deals with grammar, though, and I'm pretty sure a grammar reference was in there. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm a classicist. "Femininity" is the property of being feminine; clearly a social construction; some women and girls lack it; in another sense, it is a property of nouns, pronouns, and adjectives.. "Femaleness" is the property of being female, which may well be debateable for some people, but which a woman (whatever that means) cannot lack. That is what you appear to arguing about. (And I may be an "it"; I am not a "they"; that would be an abuse of the account.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think your comments are fantastic and perfect. You have an excellent grasp of the problem here. :) It is a problem of communication and precision in language. We have had several editors who miss the distinction between a set of things being defined by society, even though the members of that set themselves might be defined by biology or whatever else. -- Avanu (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't "miss the distinction" between anything. But you will continue to believe what you believe. Everything is defined by society, but I touch on that lower in this section in my response to you (after my response to Pmanderson). 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson, that's not quite what we've been arguing over. Somewhat, but not quite. We've been arguing because reliable sources say that femininity is not merely a social construct. While some girls and women may lack feminine behavior, that does not negate the fact that biology plays a role in femininity for some women and even men; according to research, it plays a role in femininity for all women (except maybe in the cases of some biological women who are transgender). Girls and women who lack feminine behavior are still considered to be feminine in the mind; according to research -- they still show emotion in ways that most human biological males wouldn't. The way that human biological males generally show emotion has been labeled "masculine." The way that human biological females generally show emotion has been labeled "feminine." And while I can understand how that is a social construct, I also look at it as having merely given these different behaviors a name. I don't believe that had gender and gender categories never been exaggerated (as I agree that they have been), men and women would generally act the same. I believe there would still be some distinct behavior going on between the sexes. I don't see the problem in having named these behaviors. And let's not forget that the physical traits of women (ones due to biology), such as breasts, have also been deemed "feminine." Merely a name to describe these traits. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel, I disagree, while IP 209.226.31.161 may have lost his cool with you for I while there, as I did earlier, he has been very clear, logical and fair. He has also given me back my will to fight :) Dave3457 (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I personally think Avanu’s proposal is truthful and accurate but it doesn’t matter what I think, it is bound to be removed or changed by someone who knows a source, such as the Encyclopedia of Sociology, which contradicts the claim that biology plays any role.

Here are the three versions we have been fighting over.

1 - lead claims it is entirely cultural

2 - lead claims it is entirely biological

3 - lead claims it is a mixture of the two.

All three claims will be removed or changed on the grounds that there is a notable source that contradicts it. In fact this latest brewHaHa all began with someone changing the lead from version 3 to version 1.

We need to state something that is true for every reliable source that exists which means making no claim at all.

This means saying something like….

There is much debate about the extent to which sociological factors versus biological factors play in determining what is considered feminine behavior.

I appreciate my grammar in the above isn’t very good, and I welcome a rewording but I think we need to just leave it at that or else we are all just going to be back here again later, fighting over what the truth is.

My suggested lead is...

Femininity is a set of roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a society generally associates with women and girls. Some behaviors that are generally considered feminine include gentleness, empathy and sensitivity. There is much debate about the extent to which sociological factors versus biological factors play in determining what is considered feminine behavior.

Femininity is distinct from femaleness, which is a biological and physiological classification concerned with the reproductive system and secondary sex characteristics.

The complement to femininity is masculinity.

I hate to have complicated things by including some behaviors that are considered feminine but a lead that is about femininity has to include some examples of it or its not doing its job.

Dave3457 (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Dave. I see you're responding to Aronoel's statement about not continuing discussion with me. And you're right that I "lost my cool," though I do feel I had valid reason for doing so. I wasn't truly looking to upset people by trying to get a more neutral lead, but my frustration just came out in that moment. I apologize for not being more professional. If this were work, that behavior would not have been appropriate at all. I need to remember to always think of Wikipedia talk pages as more of a work place instead of sometimes as a forum.

I'm not sure when you all fought about the lead claiming femininity is entirely biological, because I don't believe it has ever been that, but I must have missed that discussion or part of it. While your proposal for the lead is a good proposal in my opinion, especially since it mentions the debate (as WP:LEAD says it should), I'd rather just keep the lead that is there now because it is clear that having "socially constructed" in the lead satisfies three of the main editors of this article. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave3457, you said "I personally think Avanu’s proposal is truthful and accurate but it doesn’t matter what I think, it is bound to be removed or changed by someone who knows a source, such as the Encyclopedia of Sociology, which contradicts the claim that biology plays any role."

This statement is not true.

The Encyclopedia of Sociology did say this: "Femininity and masculinity are rooted in the social (one's gender) rather than the biological (one's sex)." 'Rooted in', meaning that the boundaries of the definition are decided by the social. HOWEVER.... the definition that people decide includes biological factors and probably always will. PLEASE don't ignore that, it is why we have to keep arguing this stupid argument because we ALL agree, yet you're not seeing that we are in agreement. -- Avanu (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, that's your interpretation of what the Encyclopedia of Sociology means by its definition of femininity. Aronoel, for example, obviously feels that "it so strongly rejects biology as a part of the concept of femininity." We have not all been in agreement. We have only been half in agreement. I agree that people define femininity, but you and others have taken the fact that people define it -- when humans define everything, really -- to identify femininity as only or as mostly a social construct. The debate has been that some people (researchers included) do not view it as only or as mostly a social construct. And I know, I know, you agree that what we define as femininity encompasses biological factors. I get that. No need to keep debating this. Dave is not debating the sociological vs. biological anymore. He is proposing a new lead, which I have already commented on. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Is a ham sandwich made by a pig? No, it is made by a person, but yet it does include ham. -- Avanu (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Refer to everything I've stated above. Put simply, everything in this world has been defined by human beings. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Not the point though. When we define 'female', the definition comes from the one of the two parts of a heterosexual pair. In other words, it isn't terribly subjective. We don't really define it, as much as name it. However, when we come upon something like 'ugly', 'cool', or 'femininity', we DO define it. And that's why different people have different understandings of what is ugly or not. Or cool. Or feminine. Someone might stick a feather in their cap and call it Macaroni and another bloke might say it's stupid or ugly. And same thing is true of femininity. Without a doubt femininity will always include biological traits, and we ALL agree on that, so why do we keep arguing? -- Avanu (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It is the point, though. You say, "We don't really define it, as much as name it." That is partly the same thing I stated above about femininity. I stated: Girls and women who lack feminine behavior are still considered to be feminine in the mind; according to research -- they still show emotion in ways that most human biological males wouldn't. The way that human biological males generally show emotion has been labeled "masculine." The way that human biological females generally show emotion has been labeled "feminine." And while I can understand how that is a social construct, I also look at it as having merely given these different behaviors a name. I don't believe that had gender and gender categories never been exaggerated (as I agree that they have been), men and women would generally act the same. I believe there would still be some distinct behavior going on between the sexes. I don't see the problem in having named these behaviors. And let's not forget that the physical traits of women (ones due to biology), such as breasts, have also been deemed "feminine." Merely a name to describe these traits. So, in closing, femininity is as much named as it is defined. You keep arguing against reliable sources who view this differently than you. You keep arguing with me because it is clear that we do not view femininity entirely the same way, no matter how much you claim that we do. It's also clear that we both want the last word. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

:) We are really saying very much the same thing. 'femininity can be as much named as it is defined' Make that tiny change and we're there. If you lived in a village of Amazons (the Greek kind), femininity would be something different. The 'female mind' that you describe above would not be tolerated as proper female behavior. Breasts would be cut off in favor of the ability to use the bow better. These biological traits can be expelled from femininity or brought back in. That's the difference. -- Avanu (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we are saying "very much the same thing"; I just don't agree that we see things entirely the same way on this matter, at least not always. In either case, you keep me on my toes in thinking (even if you always feel the need to give me lessons in things I already know about, which annoys me, LOL). So thanks for that. And good points about the Amazons. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

About the breast thing regarding Amazons, I do want to point out, however, that some sources, such as this one (though I'm not sure how reliable it is), dispute that they would cut off their right breasts or any breasts at all. Your point on the matter, whether the breast thing is true or not, is still a strong point about what may be considered feminine...so no worries about that. I just wanted to enlighten you about that part of the Amazon history being viewed as myth. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well of course it would be myth, since they're women... myther would be for men. How bad is the joke.....? -- Avanu (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Extra section break

IP 209, no the lead never proposed claim 2, I just included it for completeness sake.

Please note that I only said that “Avanu’s proposal is truthful and accurate”, I did not say it was good, and for two reasons.

Reason 1- As I said, someone in the future is undoubted going to justifiably object to it on the grounds that they have a source that supports claim 1. They are either going to just delete it or they are going to replace it with claim 1 or they are going to create something along the lines of my suggested version. I just went through the recent history of the lead and from june 23rd to July 04th, it has gone from claim 3 to no claim(deleted) to claim 1 and now its back to claim 3.
You say you have 3 involved editors on side but that’s not going to mean an end to this. In my opinion, the only relatively stable version is mine or something like it.

Reason 2- The fact that you guys are arguing over what the sentence means is evidence that the sentence isn’t clear. Sure, with much effort, think I now understand where Avanu is coming from with her phase “socially constructed”, but the average high school student is not going to be able to make much sense of the sentence. In your quest to make an accurate statement, at least with regards to your own POV’s, you forgot to make it intelligible for the average reader. I can also easily see someone who comes across it, trying to improve it. In my opinion, “social construction” as used in the sentence is simply too abstract and the fact that we have been arguing ad nauseum about its meaning here for some time now is evidence of that. I’m also concerned that people who read the sentence will think that “socially constructed”, means no biological input. For example, Aroneol, referring to a different proposed version containing the phrase “socially constructed”, but which didn't mention biologically-created factors, said earlier...

Thank you for looking the definition up in the Encyclopedia of Sociology, I'm actually a little surprised it so strongly rejects biology as a part of the concept of femininity. Considering the authority of this source, I feel a lot less comfortable removing "socially constructed" from the lead or adding something about biological traits to it.”

May I remind you that before that change of heart, she supported deferring the debate to the article body as I do.

While I don’t support your version, I have put it in. I’ll just wait awhile until we’re all back here again, at which point I’ll tell you I told you so :)
I replaced it with ...

Femininity is a set of behaviors and attributes generally associated with women and girls. Femininity is socially constructed, but made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors. This makes it distinct from a simple definition of the biological female sex. Some behaviors that are considered feminine include gentleness, empathy and sensitivity Women, men, and transgender people can all exhibit feminine traits.

The complement to femininity is masculinity.

I will let you guys add any references.

I removed the below sentence because it made claim 1.

What traits are associated with femininity depend on a variety of social and cultural factors, and often vary depending on location and context.

I added examples because I think its a no brainer
I removed "roles" and "activities". I don't know who put that in but it doesn't make sense to me.

Of course, feel free to discuss if you object to any of my extra changes.
Dave3457 (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, are you saying someone will come along and remove the mention about biological factors? If so, we can revert them. WP:Consensus on this talk page has been to include biological factors in the intro. An editor cannot come along and have his or her version imply or state that only cultural factors define femininity, unless he or she achieves new consensus for that on this talk page. And even then, the intro would be biased and not neutral (as even two outside editors in the RfC basically stated), and complaints could be made about that to the wider community. There would be no valid reason to keep the mention of biological factors out of the lead, when reliable sources back up biological factors partly determining femininity and when the biological/sociological issue is extensively debated. As for the intro that was agreed upon before your recent change, I was saying that we have three editors strongly in favor of keeping the "socially constructed" line. We also have two (you included) who do not want it there, and one who (me) doesn't mind too much as long as biological factors are mentioned there as defining femininity as well. So, obviously, we should try and find a balance that satisfies all. Or at least generally satisfies all. I felt that Avanu's latest version did that. Yes, you weren't completely happy with it (neither was I), but at least biological factors were now in the lead, and they still are. Yesterday, Avanu and I were not arguing over the line being in the intro. We were arguing over the definition of femininity, which, yes, includes "what is and what is not" a social construct. And I suppose that's your point: Social construction is not so clear in this case. And while I agree that it isn't, there is no denying that femininity is partly social construction.

I don't mind your text changes to the intro, but others here might. The only problem I had with your intro change was that, as I stated in my edit summary, "you removed all the sources that support the line about biological factors, which in return made those same sources invalid below -- non-existent. You have to be more careful with your editing." References that are duplicated are usually being duplicated from the primary reference source. For more on what I mean about that, see Wikipedia:REF#Footnotes and References -- at the bottom where it talks about attributes. If still using the reference, the primary one should never be removed; it makes the duplicates nothing but attributes if you do. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, it does make sense to me to include "roles" in the intro, because of social and gender roles. And the line "What traits are associated with femininity depend on a variety of social and cultural factors, and often vary depending on location and context." just needed some tweaking. Yes, we already mention social factors as partly determining femininity, but that line is talking about all the other ways it is determined as well. Your issue is with the part that says "what traits are associated with," because it makes it seem as though only sociological factors determine femininity after we've already made clear that it's more than that. So you should have left that sentence as "Traits associated with femininity include a variety of social and cultural factors, and often vary depending on location and context." 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not stuck on my wording, just that once I realized what the kerfuffle was really about, there was no reason not to make a minor change that was more accomodating of the concerns mentioned. To me, the meaning in the lead didn't change, just the emphasis. -- Avanu (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know how you felt about the previous lead before specific mention of biological factors was included, Avanu. It's just that others (myself included) disagreed with you that the lead already represented biological factors as determining femininity. I didn't see that at all. It only stated "socially constructed" and "distinct" from the biological female sex. The exact opposite of representing biological factors as determining femininity, in my opinion. But it's best not to dwell on that anymore because we aren't going to agree there. I made these changes to Dave's version, per above and because it flows better. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, this works too. I feel I should have thought of placing it there myself. I'm sure I immediately placed it where I did to demonstrate the "variety of social and cultural factors, and often vary depending on location and context" line. But I'm satisfied with either order of that line. Both versions work. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

IP 905.x.x.x., sorry to cause you trouble, yea as it happens I was familiar with naming references to use them twice, I should have checked. Also you seem to think that the new line is bullet proof but its not, its as POV as the “entirely nature” point of view. All the consensus amongst us doesn’t change that.

IP 905.x.x.x, Would adding "Some", creating the sentence "Some traits associated with femininity include a variety of social and cultural factors, and often vary depending on location and context." still result in a grammatically correct sentence? Grammar is not my strong point. I'd prefer it included if it does.

Regarding my lead “update”, please note that I didn’t go ahead and make the changes because I thought we had a complete consensus about what to put there but only a consensus that what was there couldn’t stand. I hated the idea of hundreds of people a day reading what was there.

I know you two(Avanu and IP 905.x.x.x) are probably thinking that this debate is over but I’m starting to have a change of heart. I just visited the Social constructionism wikipage and it reads...

When we say that something is socially constructed, we are focusing on its dependence on contingent variables of our social selves rather than any inherent quality that it possesses in itself.”

The key phrase here being... “we are focusing on”. Below is the sentence adjusted a bit, but where it should read the same thing.

While femininity is socially constructed, it is made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors.

I would be much happier with this version as it emphasizes the “we are focusing on” part of the definition of “socially constructed”. But I’m still not sure that the above sentence doesn’t contradict itself. A later sentence in the Social constructionism article reads....

Social constructs are generally understood to be the by-products of countless human choices rather than laws resulting from divine will or nature.

Does this sentence not in effect say that... femininity, since it is a social construct, is not the by-product, in anyway, of nature/biology? Note that I don’t take much solitude in the word “generally” in the above Social constructionism quote given that it is left out in the below definition I found.

From this definition, social constructs can be understood to be the by products of countless human choices rather than laws resulting from divine will or nature, however unintended or unconscious they might have been. [9]

And I strongly suspect that it is the source of the wiki quote which would make it the more authoritative of the two.

Dave3457 (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

What new line are you speaking of, Dave? The biologically-created factors line? Yes, I believe it's bullet proof, per everything stated above. Anybody removing it from the lead would need to give pretty valid reasons for removing it. And WP:Consensus is a policy. People cannot go against it, unless new consensus is formed. And as I stated, no new consensus can give a valid reason for not including biological factors in the lead as determining femininity, when this can be backed up by reliable sources. Femininity is due to both (biological and sociological), and both should therefore be mentioned in the lead. It's as simple as that.

There's no point in adding "some" to the line you speak of." First of all, "some" is a WP:Weasel word, and we should avoid it when we can. It's used lower in the article because it cannot be avoided and is properly attributed. Most importantly, the line you speak of is not implying or saying "all." If it were, I would not be for that line whatsoever. I'd accept it, like I previously did, but would not have advocated re-including it. The only reason I re-included it is because it now uses the word "include," meaning "there are other things that make up femininity," such as biological factors, and because it speaks of other factors determining femininity (how it varies). Further, we already mention that femininity is also made up of biological factors, so it's not like that line can be taken to mean that femininity doesn't include them. So, really, why is the the word "some" needed in any way?

Your newest change -- the addition of "while" -- is not bad, but I don't like it because I feel it is unneeded and makes the sentence fall more on the weasel word side. However, to combat that, I would have worded it as "While socially constructed, femininity is" or "Though socially constructed, femininity is." That flows better than saying "While femininity is socially constructed, [so and so]." Basically, I feel that you are unnecessarily complicating things, Dave. There is no need to keep a sense of foreboding going on, and wondering what may happen to the lead in the future. Why keep arguing against aspects of the lead when everything is pretty much okay now? I get that you've been burned in the past on this talk page, and you're still not completely satisfied with "socially constructed" being in the intro, but not everyone is always going to be completely happy when compromises are involved. Like I mentioned, we are trying to find a balance that satisfies both sides. And if you don't call it "satisfied," then what I mean is "acknowledges both sides." You being completely happy with the intro is not going to happen when there are people who also want their side in the intro. Unless all or most editors here agree to exclude "socially constructed" and just leave that part up to the "both socially-defined and biologically-created factors" line, you are not going to be completely happy with the intro. That's just how compromises go. No, I don't feel that saying "femininity is socially constructed but made up of both sociological and biological factors" is a contradiction. I don't feel that way because femininity is partly social construction; we don't say it is only or mostly a social construction. We just say "socially constructed." No need to mention "partly" when the lead already mentions both sociological and biological factors. I have to admit that I feel you are nitpicking at the lead right now, Dave. I mean, you gotta accept a compromise, or else this issue will keep going on and on. It's just not possible to make you completely happy with the lead without going against what others want, unless all or most here agree to remove "socially constructed." And I don't see that happening (not with the current editors). 209.226.31.161 (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

IP 905.x.x.x, First, I don’t understand why you removed “(lede discussion)” from the heading. When looking at one’s watch list, the heading “Extra section break” tells you nothing about what is being discussed and as a result if some other editor looks at his watchlist he's not going to know what's being discussed.

Anyway, we’ll have to agree to disagree about how bullet proof the new line is, but I think I appreciate your position a bit more now. I also disagree about the word “some” being a weasel word in this case. For example... Some cows are black and white just as Some traits associated with femininity include...”. I do agree that the word “include” now makes the sentence accurate but I was hoping to include “some” for emphases, but I’ll try to do like a yogi let it go.

I also think your wrong about the definition of “socially constructed” not excluding biological factors and thus making the new line self contradictory but, even though you unjustly accused me of nitpicking, :) , I’ll also let it go without putting up a fuss, particularly since the new phasing of the new line mitigates things a bit for me.

That all being said I’m afraid you will not be able to argue consensus if someone shows up insisting that we instead use a line something like the following...

There is considerable debate within the scientific community concerning the extent to which sociological factors as compared to biological factors play a role in determining what is understood to be feminine behavior.

...for the reasons I’ve outlined above.

Now that we have something, in principle, that all the present editors, who care, seem to more or less to agree with, I think I have a crazy idea that might keep us from having to go though this, all over again. I’ll be creating a new section in a day or two that outlines my crazy, outside the box, idea. If you think it is a good idea I’ll run with it and notify all concerned. If you don’t, I’ll abort it.

Dave3457 (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, I removed "(lede discussion)," because this whole discussion, starting with the #Definition of femininity section I created above, is about the lead discussion. We just have different title sections to break up the discussion and make replies easier. Look above, this section is a subsection of that lager section. Everyone at this talk page knows that we are talking about the lead. And if some outside editor is watching this article but not weighing in on this discussion, they know too, unless they are just tuning in. And if they are just tuning in, it's easy enough to see what this discussion is about.

"Some" is not needed for the reasons I stated above. And, yes, we'll have to agree to disagree that "some" is not a weasel word in this case. According to Wikipedia, it's a weasel word no matter even if needed and properly attributed.

I also disagree with you about "socially constructed" meaning "not at all defined by biology." How can you argue against femininity being socially constructed? It clearly is, by just considering how what is considered feminine varies by society. But just because femininity is socially constructed doesn't mean that it is not also comprised of biological factors. You and I agree that femininity is generally made up of biological factors. You also agree that femininity is made up of sociological factors. Well to that, I say anything partially defined by social factors is a social construct (yes, including clothes, since it is society that decides we must wear them). The word "woman" is a social construct, for example. But "woman" is also made up of biological factors. There is nothing contradictory about it. I don't feel that I unjustly accused you of nitpicking. I mean, you keep finding "problems" with the lead, as if the lead is supposed to make you completely happy in a compromise situation that is trying to please both sides. As I stated before, there is no way we can make you completely happy with the lead and please the other side as well (not unless the other side agrees with you).

I absolutely could still argue consensus. Read WP:Consensus if you have not. Consensus must be respected until new consensus is formed. Again, this is a Wikipedia policy. Not merely a guideline. Editors have been reported and blocked for going against consensus. That said, I wouldn't mind the following line you suggested. I've stated before that I'm not against the debate being mentioned in the lead. But let's be clear here: That line is pretty much what you suggested earlier for the lead. The thing is...consensus is for the current phrasing, and editors are tired of weighing in on this, which is why it's just mostly you and I discussing right now.

As for your new idea, you'd have to tell me what it is. But, honestly, I don't think I'm going to like it. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

IP 905.x.x.x you said:

Can we stop nitpicking at the lead now? It's getting ridiculous.

I’m not sure why your slight changes aren’t nitpicking but ours are. Actually, assuming Avanu moved the line down rather than up because she likes it down rather than up, suggests that you think your single opinion overrides our two opinions. Also alot of people have looked at that line sitting down there on its own and didn’t seem to have a problem with it. I’ve also seen other articles do the same thing with similar “by the way” short statements.

That being said, I’m not going to object to it as you have been very respectful of my concerns.

I can’t let the claim that the word “some” is always a weasel word go un-challenged. I just read the Weasel word page and it neither said nor suggested any such thing.

We’re going around in circles on the “social construction” thing, I'm going to go ahead and repeat myself because you don't seem to be addressing my point.

In my opinion the most accurate definition of “social construction” is from this very reliable source which reads as follows...

From this definition, social constructs can be understood to be the by products of countless human choices rather than laws resulting from divine will or nature,...” [10]

I equate the word ‘nature’ above with the word ‘biology’. If we’re not using the phase “socially constructed” in the technical sense then we shouldn’t be linking it to the Social constructionism page. In fact, undoing that internal link would be a good “nitpicking” edit :) , which I’d support. :)

I hope you’re not suggesting that I’m being difficult just because I don’t agree with the outcome, after all, I’m the one who went ahead and entered the disputed line into the lead. I think I have clearly indicated that I’m willing to live with it. What I’m not necessarily going to do is support it if an option like the one I suggested above is insisted upon by someone else. Lets just cross that bridge if we come to it.

I’m not sure you appreciate that “fly by nighters” are going to be constantly “dropping in” and “nitpicking”. There is no reason to think that that sort of thing is going to suddenly stop just because we like it the way it is now. I’m hoping the idea I’ve presented in the new section below will help give some stability to the lede and prevent this ordeal from happening all over again.

I just read the consensus page, (which I should have read a couple of years age), and I’m not sure that you could just argue consensus. For example one part reads...

Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Moreover, such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions.

Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change

I have just started a new section below called “Ideas on how to give stability to the new lede which was reached through consensus”. Note that the suggestion below is not the “out of the box” one, I had to scale it back after reading that every revert has to accompany an immediate reason. I guess I was too far “out of the box” :)

Given that you absolutely hated my "out of the box" idea, I hope you like this one :)

Dave3457 (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, you neglected to show the link where I also call my own slight change nitpicking. I explained quite well above why I felt you were nitpicking, and I really shouldn't have to explain again. I didn't accuse others. I accused you. And the reason I did so is because you are the one still constantly proposing changes to the lead, and are seemingly unable to accept a compromise unless you are completely happy with it. This is a compromise situation. How can it be a compromise, if you get your way completely at the expense of what others want? In a situation like this, you cannot get your way completely unless the ones who are for "socially constructed" being in the lead suddenly agree with you to toss it out. I don't think my opinion overrides anything. I actually sought out discussion on this talk page before implementing any significant changes. I'm just tired of this discussion and needless dwelling on it. A lot of people have looked at that line sitting down there on its own and didn’t seem to have a problem with it? Well, maybe that's because they aren't the best at formatting? I don't see a reason for a lone sentence, unless it needs to be alone (as in nothing else to add to it). The "Masculinity" line, however, does not need to be alone. And I felt Avanu was rejecting your edit of adding "br" to it, not the placement. But whatever.

You read the wrong Weasel word page. WP:Weasel word clearly points out "some" as a weasel word. You can even ask about it on the talk page there. "Some" should only be used when it is needed and properly attributed. "Some" is not needed whatsoever in the line in question there. WP:Weasel words used to have a bigger section dedicated to explaining this. Only recently has it, and many other guideline and policy pages, significantly cut down their sections.

Yes, we are going around in circles on the definition of "social construction" and I still don't understand what you mean. It makes no sense to me because you are acting as though things cannot be both socially constructed and biological when "Man" and Woman" are exactly that. You are acting as though "socially constructed" is significantly different than "socially defined," to which I don't agree. But all that aside, different definitions are still just different definitions. Saying which is more accurate is an opinion in this case. Just as you and I told Kaldari much higher above. But, hey, if you want to continue to combat other editors at this article just so you can be completely happy with the lead, go ahead.

Not agreeing with the outcome is one thing. Not accepting an outcome where both sides are saying "this is the only outcome I will accept" is another. I'm not sure what disputed line you speak of, because it is Avanu who added "both socially-defined and biologically-created factors." Unless you mean the line about specifics traits associated with femininity. If so, doesn't seem that disputed to me.

No, I don't appreciate the "fly by nighters" who are going to be constantly "dropping in" and "nitpicking" because this article isn't that active and they can be reverted.

Yes, we can just argue consensus. You know why? Because, once more, consensus must be respected until new consensus is formed. Not merely a guideline, but rather a policy. If saying "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions, then how do you factor in the many editors who have been blocked for going against consensus? After all, people wouldn't have to gain new consensus through the talk page, would they? Consensus on talk page would mean nothing, wouldn't it? WP:Consensus wouldn't even be a policy, would it? I tell you what, I 'll go ask about this on that talk page there and see what they say about consensus being respected until new consensus is formed. But I'm pretty sure they will agree with most of what I have stated on the subject, unless the editors have fallen out of line with general practice on Wikipedia. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

First, I assure you I’m trying to wrap this thread up as quickly as I can :)

IP 905.x.x.x, Sorry, I missed that self admission of nitpicking.

You said: “..you are the one still constantly proposing changes to the lead..”

My last suggestion and the agreed upon change was based on what I perceived to be a clear contradiction. I don’t see that as trivial. For what it is worth, I’m happy with it the way it was before Avanu just changed it and I’m happy with it the way it is now. That been said, if someone showed up arguing for certain changes that I would also like to see, I would go on record supporting those changes also. That seems fair to me.

You said: “I'm not sure what disputed line you speak of, because it is Avanu who added "both socially-defined and biologically-created factors."”

You’re right that Avanu added that line, I apologize, I though that I did. I have no idea why, but I still have the clear memory that I did, but Diffs don’t lie. Sorry for that claim.

I know you’re tired of all this, so am I, but let me just run through things as I see them because it would be unfortunate if you developed hostility toward me over a miss communication. I do respect your views, I think your “performance” in that debate with Avanu was stellar. Your arguments were strong, forceful and exhibited fantastic clarity. Whatever you may think of me, I have a lot of respect for you.

This was my thinking when I made this edit that shook up the lede. Diff please bear with me.

First, I thought I had just taken it upon myself to integrate Avanu’s suggested new “social construction” line. As I’ve said, I have no idea why I have the memory of being the one to include that line but I do. Note how the Edit summary of that Diff directly above says, "Changed lead to consensus" which of course is ridiculous.

Anyway, I made several changes during that edit, thinking that, since it as so gracious of me to make such a comprise :) that I would take the “opportunity” to make some desired changes of my own and see how they float. In hindsight the comments I made on the talk page must of seemed very strange. Here they are...

When I wrote...

I will let you guys add any references.

you must of thought I was mad. But I was thinking...

I will let you guys add any references, to the line “Femininity is socially constructed, but made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors.” which I just added.

But of course, I didn’t add that line.

I suspect that maybe it is at this point that you began to get impatient and all these “negative vibes” I’ve been getting from you started to begin.

That being said you seem to have taken things in stride and you even agreed with my edits, more or less. From my end I thought all the edits by everyone after that were very healthy and productive and was just what you would expect of a healthy exchange. I didn’t see any “nitpicking” including on your part, just a lot of healthy back and forth editing.

You said: WP:Weasel word clearly points out "some" as a weasel word.

I’m very surprised that that is your take, the objection in that paragraph is to the phrase “some people say” not the word “some”. I would urge you to read it again. At the end of that paragraph, it says in summary...

Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe,... should be clearly attributed.

I’ll place my views on consensus in the new “Ideas on how to give stability...” section

Dave3457 (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with changing it back if people prefer that slightly older version. I was just trying to solve complaints as 209 said. -- Avanu (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, I mean no disrespect. But if you are trying to "wrap this thread up as quickly as [you] can," why keep giving such long replies? Why even still discuss it at all? To me, it was like we could do nothing to satisfy you. I mean, everyone is in agreement, but you kept and still keep dwelling on phrasing and what might happen in the future, acting as though we will be powerless if someone comes along and changes the lead. No, we will not be. It will not be up to us to convince an individual of consensus. It will be up to that person to convince us of changing the consensus.

Glad you found it.

You were the one still constantly proposing changes to the lead. Yes, you pointed out what you feel is a contradiction (which we disagree on), but that was you also suggesting we change it. You didn't seem happy with the lead before Avanu's change at all. But if you say that you were, I suppose I'll just have to take your word for it.

No need to apologize for a simple mistake. But I also apologize for offending you if I did, for saying that you have been nitpicking.

No, I'm not going to develop hostility toward you. Not permanently anyway, LOL. Because we may get into heated arguments in the future (who knows?). And, look, now I'm talking about the future, LOL. Avanu and I got into a passionate debate (as you know), and I held temporary hostility toward Avanu and others, but now I'm over it. Thank you for respecting me. I respect you as well. It's true that I don't agree with everything you state, but I do respect your right to state them.

I see. I appreciate the explanation of your mindset then and now. And, no, I didn't think you were strange or angry. Sorry for the negative vibes. I'm just frustrated with this discussion, and, like you stated, tired of it.

I said WP:Weasel word clearly points out "some" as a weasel word because it is stressing the words "some," "most" etc. It's not simply about using "some people." Like I stated, "WP:Weasel words used to have a bigger section dedicated to explaining this. Only recently has it, and many other guideline and policy pages, significantly cut down their sections." That may be why you are now interpreting it the way you are. But if you were to pose this question on the talk page, or go through the archives of that talk page, you will very specifically get answers that words such as "some" and "most" are considered weasel words. I already pointed out that such words should only be used when they are needed and properly attributed. So I don't see why you are pointing out the attribution line to me as well. But my bigger point on the matter was that "some" is not needed at all in the discussed line.

But, yes, talk with you later. Well, maybe. I'm ready to move on from this. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

IP 905.x.x.x, I'm ready to move on as well but you keep saying things that aren’t true like...

you kept and still keep dwelling on phrasing

With regards to your statement...

You didn't seem happy with the lead before Avanu's change at all.

There is a difference between, being happy with the lede and being willing to live with it. Maybe I didn't state clearly enough that I would be willing to live with it.

I have the grounds to argue that the simple word "some" is no longer stated to be a weasel word because people decided that its not, and that it was a mistake to suggest so. You can’t argue past policy to defend your position. Nor can anyone else that agrees with you.

Dave3457 (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, I don't feel that I was stating untrue things. While everyone else was no longer offering up lead changes, you were. You were even speculating about what people might do in the future in regards to the lead. How is that not dwelling on it?

As for "some," I was not arguing "past policy." It is considered a weasel word, even when attributed to a source. Wikipedia only wants the word "some" used when it is needed or attributed, because it doesn't truly specify anything. "Some" could mean "two," "three," etc. But, anyway, we don't completely agree. The main point was/is that "some" is unnecessary in this instance. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ideas on how to give stability to the new lede which was reached through consensus

At this point we seem to have a consensus concerning the lede. I’ve started this section in the hope that we might get proactive and discuss how we could best avoid a repeat of what just happened concerning the lede. Of course other editors and “fly by nighters” are going to be making changes to it and that of course is fine but because the subject of femininity is so contentious, this lede seems to be subject to more change than the ledes of other articles.
First I would point out that we can’t just argue consensus to prevent further changes as consensus policy states....

Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Moreover, such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change

The consensus page also says that you have to state a valid reason when you revert an edit.

My proactive suggestion is that maybe we as editors would be less likely to let edits to the lede just “slide” if responding to those edits was not so time consuming. Having to re-explain everything over and over again can be quite the time consuming drag. For example a person just recently changed the lede from suggesting that feminine attributes were both “inborn and socialized” do saying that they were a “social construction”. IP 905.x.x.x and I strongly objected and through alot of effort we all agreed on the following compromise...

Though socially constructed, femininity is made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors.

If someone changes it again, while we would not be at square one, depending on how far in the future the change is made, a lot of time will be spent trying to convincing the individual to accept the compromise we have just arrived at.
Anyway I was thinking of creating an archive page in Talk Space that contained a collection of some of the common concerns and objections that we have and we could just copy and paste the appropriate concern or objection into this talk page. Each pasted version would then be fine tuned to the specific edit. The archive page, unlike this one could be edited like an actual article. Unlike an actual article however, reaching a consensus about something would not be an issue because anyone could just branch off and create their own version of a response. I appreciate that no one likely cares if I personally create an archive page and start putting common responses in it for my own personal use, but I thought it would be good if others at least knew that it was there and new that they were free to use it and maybe even make their own contributions. I’ve started the archive page and it is right here. I welcome any feedback on it.

Anyway, I’d also be interested in any ideas or advice on how to best create a more stable lede.
Dave3457 (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that this archive of common concerns is a good idea. You could place a hidden comment at the lede paragraph or an edit template, to warn users trying to modify the definition that they should first understand what the current consensus is before trying to challenge it. Article 0.999... is a good example of this - they have created a note in the wikicode,[11] a FAQ in the talk page and a common arguments archive. Diego Moya (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Especially since it has already been changed without any discussion. USchick (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Diego Moya. That is pretty much what I was trying to point out to Dave. Despite WP:Consensus saying "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions, consensus must be respected until new consensus is formed. So WP:Consensus is contradictory to me on that point. People are blocked all the time for not following WP:Consensus (when they keep edit warring against consensus), for example (and, no, I don't mean blocked just for edit warring). We wouldn't have to spend a lot of time trying to convince the individual to accept the compromise we have arrived at. They would have to convince us to go against that compromise, which would then create new consensus. I also brought this up at Wikipedia talk:Consensus#"According to consensus" and "violates consensus". Either way, Avanu has already taken the initiative and removed "socially constructed." So we'll see how that goes. If no one who has participated at this talk page adds it back, we can safely assume that consensus is for it being removed. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add it back without being accused of edit warring. USchick (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

And I didn't comment at the previous discussion, but feel that the current version is better. So I'm afraid I don't think we can say there's consensus either way. But I'd prefer something along the lines of "Femininity is perceived as being comprised ... by different analysts" Diego Moya (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel that we should say "Femininity is perceived as being comprised of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors." But I'm not opposed to it. The reasons I don't feel it's needed, however, is because: For one, femininity is definitely comprised of sociological factors; that we all agree on. And sociologists stand by that. On the other hand, researches state that biological factors also make up masculine and feminine behaviors. They stand by that. Third, we make clear after the sociological/biological line that what is considered feminine varies by culture and context. So it's already clear that perception plays a part in femininity. I don't see a need to make the "both socially-defined and biologically-created factors" line sound like a theory. If you want to mention the sociological/biological debate specifically, then I would prefer Dave's suggestion for that; his suggestions takes out the "both socially-defined and biologically-created factors" line altogether and just leaves it up to mention of the debate. But I don't feel that specific researchers/analysts should be mentioned in the lead at all. That should stay in the lower body of the article. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

So much for sticking to the consensus. Removing the part about "socially constructed" changes the whole gist of the first paragraph. I don't really think we have consensus on the current wording, so I don't see any reason to try to enshrine it. Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Since we have consensus on the previous wording, I would support you reverting. But it also seems we were missing the opinion of another editor (Diego Moya). I believe Avanu was mostly just trying to appease Dave, even though I've already explained to Dave that no one can be completely happy with the lead in the case of this article. We are trying to compromise. That means finding common ground, though not being completely in agreement. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't care particularly how the lead is phrased, as long as it is actually true. -- Avanu (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I bow to the decision of the editors that have been discussing the matter, since they have a thorough understanding of the nuances involved. I just wanted to express my opinion that, if there are several possible points of view here, the lead definition should take all off them into account to keep balance. Diego Moya (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been away for a few days, so coming back here I'm surprised that people are saying there is consensus for the lead. I'm pretty sure a lot of editors here do not agree with the lead. Maybe we can do an informal poll or something, so that it will be easier to keep track of which person takes which position? Also, I think considering there have been sockpuppeting issues here before, we might want to keep in mind that it may be happening again. --Aronoel (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Diego Moya, thanks for your suggestions, I’ve acted upon them.Dave3457 (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel, every editor here seemed okay with the current lead. We needed a compromise. Exactly what is wrong with saying that femininity is made up of both sociological and biological factors, when this is backed up by reliable sources and can be backed up by many more? If the word "is" bothers people, then we can use "may," but I see the no reason at all to restrict the lead to a social definition of femininity when there is extensive debate about biological factors also comprising femininity. As for sockpuppet issues... If you mean me, I must state that just because I am an IP, it does not make a sockpuppet. Am I sockpuppet of Dave? Did I really take the time to extensively debate and often disagree with myself? Am I a sockpuppet of USchick? Did I really seek out and thank myself? Do I at all sound like any of these editors in my reasoning, other than we all agree on including biological factors in the lead? I think not. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggest removal of History section.

The present history section is more about the history of women then femininity. The sentences below kind of give this away.

... women were prized for their creative ability to reproduce..

females were defined simply by their biological attributes

Women in the Middle Ages were referred to simply as

The concept of "woman" changed in a number of ways..." .

For completeness of this new section, I copied and pasted below an exchange that just took place.

I think there are issues in the rest of the article about confusing women with femininity. For example, this sentence: "According to English Common Law, all property a wife held at the time of marriage transferred to her husband, and as late as 1537, according to the translated version of the Matthew Bible, it was perfectly acceptable for a husband to beat his wife into submission." --Aronoel (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree about that sentence and removed it. USchick (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Any support? Dave3457 (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel, you don't think it's important to explain how the concept of femininity came about in history? USchick (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's important. I don't know why my comment was pasted here as if I was supporting complete removal of this section. However, I do think a few of the sentences Dave mentioned could be tweaked or deleted to make sure the woman/femininity distinction is maintained. Also, I don't think the etymology info belongs in this article. It's not an unusual or notable etymology. --Aronoel (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

What I think is important to keep from the etymology and history section is that the concept of femininity was originally tied to biology, specifically breastfeeding and childbearing. If that changed at some point, it would be nice to know when and how. Considering how much controversy there is among editors, the history of how the concept developed over time is very important. USchick (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the current discussion in the history section is more about the history of women in society and not about the history of the concept of femininity as such. Additionally, the words "masculinity" and "femininity" here are used simply as stand-ins for men and women, i.e. "By the Iron Age the roles between masculine and feminine were strongly delineated." (I should also mention that this sentence does not conform to standard English grammar). Unless someone can rewrite this section into a discussion of the history of the concept of femininity as such (I imagine this will be a very difficult task) with sources, then we should delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fistoffoucault (talk • contribs) 01:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel, sorry, I didn’t mean to misrepresent you views. I’ve stricken your comment.

I have to be honest, since creating this section, my view has changed some what. What really soured me about this section was the line, “according to the translated version of the Matthew Bible, it was perfectly acceptable for a husband to beat his wife into submission." When I read that a while ago, I asked myself, what the hell is this doing here? And put creating a discussion about whether or not to remove the section on my what-to-do list. When Aronoel made her comment, I stopped putting it off and did it. I have since read it without that line and it is not so bad.

Personally I think it has to be agreed that what it means to be a “women” is tied up very intimately with what it means to be feminine. What I don’t agree with is that at one point in history, what it meant to be feminine was to allow yourself to be beaten up by your husband. That sentence speaks about the attitude of men at that point in time, in that culture, rather than what it was to be feminine.

I still think there are problems with the section however, for example the line “females were defined simply by their biological attributes.” I would be very surprised if that is supported by the reference and not a bit of POV. That statement suggests, for example, that raising children (ages 2-12) at that point in time was not considered part of what it meant to be feminine.

I'm going to repeat an above sentence of mine because I want to stress it...

I think it has to be agreed that what it means to be a “women” is tied up very intimately with what it means to be feminine.

Dave3457 (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I understand the need to finesse the wording, but the concept should be preserved. Women could be brutally beaten according to law, and the law was supported by the Bible. At that point, it's difficult to say that women allowed themselves to be beaten. Women's rights is a recent development in history, and "females were defined simply by their biological attributes” is exactly what the source says and you can follow the link to page 140 in the book. We don't have to say it though. The idea is that once iron weapons were developed, war became extremely valued as an activity and elevated men to a position of glory. It's not that women were devalued, they were simply left out because they didn't feel the need to participate. We talked about long hair, make up and everything else, changing over time between masculine and feminine, war has been exclusively a masculine activity from the time of the Iron Age (I have references). As a result, women went from being extremely valued for their fertility – to being left out and marginalized in society, with the same rights as slaves. Aristotle described women as "infertile males," unable to produce semen (I have references). What a difference to go from one extreme to another! USchick (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

USchick, you said: Women could be brutally beaten according to law, and the law was supported by the Bible.

I agree that males physically dominated females back then, but we have to be clear and make a distinction between what it meant to be a feminine female back then and what where the consequences of being female. Males wrote the bible and males were stronger back then, if females were stronger than males, I can’t imagine that they would have allowed themselves to be beaten in order to be seen as feminine. They were beaten by males because they were weaker and had no choice. Again it was a consequence of being female. In my view it is not at all “difficult to say (whether) women allowed themselves to be beaten.”

If the exact statement in the book is “females were defined simply by their biological attributes” then I agree, but the truth of the matter is that today what it means to be female is “defined simply by ones biological attributes”, one only needs to look in a dictionary for proof of this. Also since the statement is about what it means to be female and not about what it means to be a feminine female it doesn’t belong in a “history of femininity” section.

I would even have problems if you were to find a book that stated that what it meant for females to be feminine back then, was simply defined by their biological attributes. I don’t know what your position is on the nature VS as nurture debate but it is held my many that what it means for a women to be feminine is in part determined by their brain structure. You would have to first prove that brain structure has no effect on what it means to be feminine before you would be able to make the claim that only biological attributes defined what it was to be feminine.

I might also add that an abundance of female figurines is not evidence that their physical form is the only thing that determined what it was to be feminine. Today on the internet you find an extreme abundance of naked female forms, that isn’t evidence that only the female form defines what it is to be feminine.

Dave3457 (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, what do you recommend? USchick (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to find more sources for this section, and we need to make sure those sources are talking specifically about femininity and not just women. Then this section will not just be based on one author's claims. In the meantime, Dave makes good points and I think we could remove the Bronze age info altogether. Also, that justification for the etymology info doesn't make sense. The fact that femininity is based on the Latin word for women doesn't have anything to do with whether it had a biological meaning at that time, and to suggest so is original reasearch. --Aronoel (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel you said: …we need to make sure those sources are talking specifically about femininity and not just women.

Aronoel, I agree with the above if you replace the word “women” with “ being female”. That fact is that authors very often use the word “women” when they are talking about the feminine nature. For example in the sentence, “It is common for men to open doors for women” the sentence is clearly discussing the relationship between the masculine and feminine. On the other hand the sentence “It is common for men to impregnate women” is clearly discussing biology. I think each reference to “women” has to be considered on its own merit. If I’m not mistaken, I believe this distinction is the reason we both objected to the “it was considered alright for men to beat women in the past” comment.

Aronoel you said: The fact that femininity is based on the Latin word for women doesn't have anything to do with whether it had a biological meaning at that time, and to suggest so is original research.

Aronoel, I believe that you are the one that just engaged in original research. Where is the source that says that they were not making a reference to biologically. The origin of the word strongly suggests otherwise. But what you or I believe doesn’t matter, the reader is free to draw what conclusions they like, we are simply presenting them with a fact. It would be very unfair for you to object to a given fact being presented because you don’t like what the fact suggests. If we editors start objecting to facts concerning the subject being presented, then we are all in big trouble.

USchick said: Dave, what do you recommend?

To be honest I’m not sure I want to invest much time on this section, I can easily see this debate about the difference between being female and being feminine going on forever.

I will say, for the reasons I’ve stated above, I object to the statement “females were defined simply by their biological attributes.”

Dave3457 (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is to remove the ancient history section. The modern history section talks about where the notion came from, I reinstated it. USchick (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)