Talk:Gender essentialism/Archive 1

Archive 1

WikiTrad

Wikitrad Project

This article is being translated into Spanish by the Wikitrad Project.

@Mcptrad: I went to the Wikitrad link and I don't see any evidence of anything happening on this translation project. If it's moribund, can we remove this banner from the talk page?

Furthermore, the article is in terrible shape, and needs a vast amount of work. It is in no way worth translating, and I would strongly recommend against doing so, as it will likely undergo big changes.

As a separate matter: I have done translations from Catalan into English for en-wiki before, and plan to continue, and I don't see anyone listed in the tables for ca-en translation. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mcptrad: I note your reply at my talk page that you plan to translate it, but not publish it. Given the current state of the article, I think it's wise to not publish it. If you just use plan to use it as a translation exercise, I see no harm in that.

However, there are so many en-wiki articles that would be worthy of inclusion in Catalan Wikipedia, that it seems a shame to spend all the effort to translate an article that is destined not to published when you are done with it. If you're interested, there is a WMF tool that will help you find articles that exist in English, but not in Catalan Wikipedia (or between any two Wikipedias), so you can choose one that needs translating. Or, you could simply go to the Talk page for WikiProject Catalan and ask for recommendations on articles needing translation there. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Only about women?

Why does the article begin with statements that gender essentialism is only about defining females, not females and males? Isn't essentialism applicable to both? Am I misunderstanding a major point about what constitutes essentialism, or does this single-gender view reflect the position of a broad group of thinkers? Not trying to open a debate here about different positions, but simply trying to make sure the article accurately describes the topic.Pete unseth (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Raising the question again: Is gender essentialism only about females? If so, the article needs to be renamed. This is not a trivial point.Pete unseth (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Pete unseth: You're quite right, and the lead sentence defining the term is wrong in two ways: 1) that it's only about women, and 2) that it's circular, defining essentialism in terms of essence, leaving the reader completely in the dark.

A better idea of what this term actually means can be found in West & Zimmerman's 1987 article, "Doing Gender", which defines the non-essentialist position, so the antonym, more or less. Wikipedia has an article about it at Doing gender, and there is also Social construction of gender, but they could both stand some improvement (especially the latter). This is just the talk page, but a definition of Gender essentialism would be something like, the theory that being born male, or female, determines one's nature as a man displaying masculine behavior, or a woman displaying feminine behavior, and that these behaviors are biological/hormonal and thus come from nature (rather than being something that is learned, practiced, ingrained, taught, etc.). Thus that the differences between men and women are fundamental as part of our born sex. That's too long-winded to serve as a lead sentence; maybe just the last sentence above, with "rather than something that is influenced by the environment and interaction others" appended to it.

Do you feel comfortable taking a first crack at improving the definition in the article, since you spotted it? Or if you prefer, we could discuss it here first: i.e., think up some idea of a lead sentence (or paragraph, or whatever you like) and post it below. (Using "blockquote" tags to set off your draft will help make clear what counts as your talk comments, and what counts as proposed draft for the article; i.e, <blockquote>Your proposed text here...</blockquote>.) I'm sure we can come up with an improvement to what is there. When adding a comment, please include {{re|Mathglot}} in your reply.

P.S. I took the liberty of changing the section header above; if you don't approve of my change, feel free to change it. Mathglot (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The intro is still awful, but I am not the one to try to rewrite the intro at this point. Though if somebody makes it worse, I may try. The article still talks about gender essentialism as if it were only related to women. If being a woman is essential, then it should also be that being a man is essential. Not sure why this logic is not reflected in the article. This works for me. Though the problem is worst in intro, the whole article is just about women and essentialism. Is essentialism a one-sided topic? Does whole article need to be retitled? Or maybe I am missing something here? Pete unseth (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Pete. Yep, it was still awful. Okay, so since you declined, I went ahead and took a crack at it. The former lead, is now the first section of the body, and I put a "#Background" section header on it. I didn't change the content of it at all, and so now, the awful lead is an awful introductory section to the article.

I'd appreciate it if you'd have a look at it, and comment on the the new Lead. Anything you see wrong, missing, or needs changing? Feel free to just do it, or if you prefer, comment below. For sure the second paragraph needs sourcing; I'm pretty confident of the content, but it does need citations. Mathglot (talk) 06:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Certainly an improvement, Mathglot. The reference to society seeing people as either men or women is mentioned as being from "Western Culture" is still an issue. Is there a culture in the world that did not categorize at least 99.9% of its population as being one or the other?! Now, to find a source... Thanks for the improvement.Pete unseth (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Pete, Thanks for that catch; you're right that all cultures the world over view it that way (at least, I don't know a counterexample). The intention here was to say that we actually have writings going back to the ancient Greeks that document this, in their discussions of "essence" and "essentialism" (of which more should probably said), not that gender essentialism belongs only to the west. To respond to your point, I changed the second sentence to make it more worldwide, see what you think. It would be great to find some ancient Chinese or Hindu writings that said something on the topic and add those as well.

What do you think about the "old" lead, now moved down to section #Background? It's less annoying, moved out of the lead, but do you think it improves the article? From what I see, up until the sentence mentioning Grosz, there's nothing worth keeping. The Grosz definition of essentialism is okay, I guess, but it's long-winded, applies only to women, and there are better definitions in the section below. Maybe we could keep the Grosz definition as it applies to women (appropriately pared down) if there was something that talked about gender essentialism with respect to perceived universal features of masculinity. But it would be better to find a reference that talks about each gender.

There are a couple of other things I'd like to add to the article, which is something about biological determinism, which seems synonymous, or nearly so, but I have to read up on it more. The other thing, is something called gender criticism, used more often in the adjectival form gender critical. Although feminist thought starting with de Beauvoir and continuing in the 60s and 70s was primarily responsible for the current trends in social constructionist thought which underpin most of feminist theory, there's an interesting countervailing opinion by a minority of radical feminists who espouse something much closer to gender essentialism, who believe there's something irreducible about femaleness/womanhood that isn't just about being raised and socialized as a girl and woman, but goes deeper than that. This new gender essentialism, or gender critical view, is at the root of some of the criticism and blowback against transgender theorists and trans women especially, in views such as Daly, Greer, Raymond, Jeffreys, and others.

The second paragraph of the lead needs references, and the Background section needs to be pared down quite a bit, imho, if you feel like helping with any of that. Or, if you can find anything about essentialism in other ancient societies, that would be great. Otherwise, I could use your continuing feedback and criticism here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

some definitions

some definitions and sources that could be used to expand the lead section

The definition of gender essentialism derives from essentialism, which in turn goes back to the idea of "essence" among the ancient Greeks. The whole notion of gender essentialism is one that still divides feminist theorists. You can't do better than the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for a rundown on where all major feminist thinkers stand on this topic, in their article Feminist Perspectives on Sex and Gender. (They use the term gender realism instead of gender essentialism, for reasons they explain here. Here are some definitions of gender essentialism culled from various sources: the assumption (sometimes called gender essentialism) that there are fundamental traits or characteristics that inhere in all males (and only in males) and others that inhere in all females (and only in females). — The Sociocultural Turn in Psychology, p. 91 In theological discussions of gender, essentialism is the doctrine that God created humanity in two distinct sexes. Each is made for the other. Our created nature is to be either male or female. Our natures cannot change. Our desires are intended to be for the opposite sex. Same-sex desire cannot conform to our created nature. — God, Sex, and Gender: An Introduction, p. 19 The idea that there are certain essential, biologically based or psychologically universal features of gender. If gender is something that resides in us due to bodies - because of hormones or biology or whatever - then in terms of political organization or policy making it is an easy step to arguing that our social relations should be moulded around these differences. If we accept an essentialist, traditional, conservative version of gender we are likely to be happier with the status quo and likely to be hostile to feminist calls for change. — An Introduction to Critical Social Psychology, p. 107 Sandra Bem: Throughout the history of Western culture, three beliefs about women and men have prevailed: that they have fundamentally different psychological and sexual natures, that men are inherently the dominant or superior sex, and that both male-female difference and male dominance are natural. Until the mid-nineteenth century, this naturalness was typically conceived in religious terms, as part of God’s grand creation. Since then, it has typically been conceived in scientific terms, as part of biology’s—or evolution’s—grand creation. Bem, Sandra Lipsitz (1993). The Lenses of Gender: Transforming the Debate on Sexual Inequality. Yale University Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-300-06163-5. Retrieved 15 December 2017. Finally, the third lens is the lens of biological essentialism, which rationalizes and legitimizes both other lenses by treating them as the natural and inevitable consequences of the intrinsic biological nature of women and men. This is the lens that has secularized God's grand creation by substituting its scientific equivalent: evolution's grand creation. — p. 2 Essentialism is the view that categories have an underlying reality or true nature that one cannot observe directly but that gives an object its identity. In other words, according to essentialism, categories are real, in several senses: they are discovered (versus invented), they are natural (versus artificial), they predict other properties, and they point to natural discontinuities in the world. —Miller, Patricia H.; Scholnick, Ellin Kofsky (3 June 2014). Toward a Feminist Developmental Psychology. Routledge. p. 169. ISBN 978-1-317-79526-1. ...essentialism can be located in appeals to a pure or original femininity, a female essence, outside the boundaries of the social and thereby untainted (though perhaps repressed) by a patriarchal order. It can also be read in the account of universal female oppression, the assumption of a totalizing symbolic system which subjugates all women everywhere, throughout history and across cultures. Fuss, Diana (11 January 2013). Essentially Speaking: Feminism, Nature and Difference. Routledge. pp. 1–2, 39–40. ISBN 978-1-135-20112-8. Retrieved 16 December 2017.

Hopefully some of these sources will be useful in adding to the article, and especially in replacing the incorrect definition. Mathglot (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Differing definitions among population at large and some activists & academics

There was a recent edit by The Vintage Feminist inserting "men and women (not to be confused with male and female)". To the majority of the English speaking world, this redefinition of these terms is a contradiction. To many who are in circles of academia and gender identity politics, this is an important and accepted distinction. How can we accommodate these two contradictory views, each with its own legitimacy? The source that was cited for this sentence, p. 107 of a book, does not assert the position inserted by this edit. I propose a compromise that recognizes the two definitions. Here is a proposal, though others will probably improve my phrasing:

Gender essentialism is the theory that there are certain universal, innate, biologically- or psychologically-based features of gender (different from sex) that are at the root of observed differences in the behavior of men and women.[1] Some specialists in the field distinguish between "men and women" and "male and female".

I offer this suggestion in the hope that we can all edit together in a civil manner. Some have complained that the atmosphere among Wikipedia editors is becoming more hostile. I hope we can show a different trend, even when we disagree. Pete unseth (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Why is LDS the only religion mentioned?

The subsection on gender essentialism in religion only mentions the LDS. I think that section ought to be cut entirely (if it can't be fixed), broadened out to talk about the doctrine of other major world religions on gender essentialism, or at least have some justification for why the LDS is the only religion mentioned (e.g. if the rationale for only mentioning the LDS is that most other world religions are less essentialist, then that needs to be made explicit and justified)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelroe2 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

While this is an old thread the concern may still be valid (only Mormons are mentioned). A possibility is that for various other faiths gender is less important in the afterlife (i.e. Luke 20:27-38). But it also could simply be that the article needs improvement: if you can find a source that list various religious-related cases of gender essentialism, this would be ideal, as it would avoid cherry picking by editors (a type of synthesis unless specific cases have a source mentioning gender essentialism). —PaleoNeonate – 01:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, The reason is actually pretty banal, and nothing to do with attitude of religions. I made the change that introduced the religion section and started with LDS, because it was available in the source I was reading first. After adding it, I had a vacation coming up, and had to return my books to the library. When I got back, either they weren't available, or I forgot, or was on to something else. There is certainly information available about other religions, and it's important to add them as well. I particularly look forward to learning more about Hindu attitude, given that they have deities that are bigender, and seeing if there's anything that mentions a possible attitude towards essentialism, and adding that to the article if proper sources can be found about it. I'll try to get back to it, but as usual, have too much on my plate. I can attest that there are good sources out there about other religions as well, in case someone else wants to attack this. Mathglot (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

True that Buddhism and Hinduism have interesting cases, the many binary couples (including Shiva+Shakti), then Ardhanarishvara and bodhisattvas like Guanyin... Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 12:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

What does Darwin have to do with this?

Currently, the article says, "This view remained essentially unchanged until the middle of the 19th century, until Darwin's publications on evolution." This is a major claim, but it is unsourced. I have never heard that Darwin was directly linked to this topic. This needs to be given a serious source (not just a casual mention from a blog), or removed. There are complaints that Wikipedia editors are becoming hostile and contentious. Let's demonstrate that this is not universally true. Pete unseth (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I noticed the same oddity. The source didn't really reflect the text of the citation, so I have removed the association. —PaleoNeonate – 22:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Too much Gender Studies

As is, the article discusses only from a Gender Studies perspective. Scientific perspectives (i.e. psychology, biology) need to be worked in somehow. These fields have a lot to say on sex and gender, while recognizing variability, not 'essences'. 'Gender essentialism' is pretty much just a gender studies concept, but it needs to be made clear that this concept is limited to that field and that all sex differences being 'socially constructed' is quite contentious. Crossroads1 (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Crossroads1 for pointing this out. It really is useful to refer to the talk page on topics like this. --Ricgal (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Kudos for this article

While the added header to this article suggests there are problems with this article, at the least the article is a starting reference to what some, or maybe even many, of us find to be a difficult subject.

In our Canadian society, we are being told as truth a very different view than that which we grew up with. Those of us who are religious may even think of it as a moving of the boundary markers of society. We question the truth of these new social constructs. To us, this article helps us to find a place to hang our hats, so to speak. Being able to differentiate between personal experience and other evidence is a help to us. --Ricgal (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM --Equivamp - talk 03:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)