Talk:Man/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Trans content in lead

Newimpartial, can you show where there was a prior consensus to have the trans-content in the lead? It hasn't been in the lead since at least 1 Jan, 2022. I would say that means it needs to show consensus to add. While I understand some people see this as a political hot point, I don't see why this is DUE in the lead. Currently this appears to be a NOCON case which means revert to the last stable version. Springee (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The last stable version was pre- December, 2021, and it contained the content in question. Newimpartial (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
We're overdue for an RfC on this matter. Rather than rehash the trans (and intersex) discussion, which led to at least one TBAN last time, can we work on crafting an RfC? I am agnostic on wording, but I'd like a short mention in the lead that there are some men that do not meet the definition we have provided. I'd like it to name and link trans men for sure and would prefer intersex men be included as well. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
A RfC would make sense at this time. I looked in the archives and didn't see a clear discussion of this content in the lead. Springee (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, a clear discussion would be a lot to ask for. Maybe we could manage a discussion without trolling? That would be good. Anyway, the 2021 content should stay until then. Newimpartial (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
My expectation was that this is the sort of content that may have been previously discussed. If we had a previous RfC then we could say there was a clear, prior consensus. Instead we have implicit consensus. I agree that trolling isn't going to be helpful. I don't agree that the nocon status is the 2021 content but a RfC would be a good way to address that vs just removing/adding etc. Springee (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
A portion of the lead mentioning trans and intersex men was present in May 2017, July 2019, and December 2020. It was separated into a paragraph in August 2021 which Crossroads edited and eventually removed. Given that this material was present in some form for 4 years, I think the removal based on consensus of 4 editors in late 2021 was inappropriate. As a social category, it is 100% accurate to mention variation outside of the Western cisnormative definition. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Please note that the mention of trans and intersex men in the lead dates from 2014. Newimpartial (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps the answer is to reintegrate so it's a single sentence rather than a stand alone paragraph. Note that the trans part of the body is just 3 sentences yet it is a stand alone paragraph in the lead. Springee (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
It seems obvious to me that what we need is more Trans (and intersex, now that the main POV-pusher in this domain is quiet) content in the article, not a reduction within the lead section. And what we need even more is content related to gender roles, etc. - that isn't really what the Masculinity section sets out to do, nor should it. Newimpartial (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
I think you need to show that an increase would not be a weight issue. Remember the relative weight of content should reflect sources at large, not just content we view as important. I'm not sure who the POV pusher was but we should probably avoid accusations like that all around. Springee (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes. And the claim above that the way it has been for all of 2022 is not the "stable version" is preposterous. If 5+ months can be treated as unstable and not having WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, anything can. And even if an RfC happened, what was the status quo matters in case of no consensus. Springee, in my view, anyone edit warring to enforce a very old version as though it were the status quo should be reverted. EvergreenFir called it "a consensus of 4 editors in late 2021" that removed it, even though they disagree - which shows that it was in fact a consensus, and I'd argue this is a case of WP:CCC. And if anything, what this article needs is more info on men in general rather than lopsided coverage of like 0.5% of the population when we already have an article on trans man. Crossroads -talk- 23:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
So which is the status quo version? Is it the pre-tban version from 5 December 2021? Post-tban version from 29 December 2021? Or some other revision before or after those dates? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
@Crossroads:, the last two edit summaries for your reverts [1] and [2] are somewhat in conflict with each other here. I asked a short while ago which version was the status quo stable version. In your most recent summary, you say This has not been stably present since 12 December 2021 that implies that the stable version is prior to that date. If so then the longest standing stable version is what was present on 5 December 2021.
Can you please now confirm what version you consider to be the stable version, as this edit war between both you and @Newimpartial: is very disruptive. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
The "disruptive" part is when one editor is maxing out 3RR on reverting two others to force text in against the stable version/status quo, and not waiting for discussion to reach consensus. That wasn't me doing that.
Unless I overlooked something, the stable version as it pertains to the content in question here is this from 12 December 2021. It only appeared after that when being swiftly reverted, hence not "stably present" or a part of a stable version. Crossroads -talk- 00:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, you have overlooked. The disruption began on or around 6 December, according to the contributions from Maneesh. The version from 12 December was definitely in the middle of that period of disruption. The earliest version prior to Maneesh's contributions was this revision on 5 December 2021 which had stood since your prior edit on 19 August 2021. I believe based on the context of their reply that EvergreenFir tried to link the 19 August diff previously, but accidentally used the wrong URL. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Also this was discussed in the current page above under Talk:Man/Archive 7#Odd claims about intersex, and other kvetching towards the end. It was me, Quirinius Germanicus (via edit), and Tewdar (in the discussion) who supported removal, as well as Maneesh, who is now topic banned - but that doesn't make the previous decision invalid. Crossroads -talk- 23:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Crossroads, you were the only editor who removed this material from the lead between the banned editor (on December 11), and Springee this week. That isn't implicit consensus, it's stonewalling. Since that time, if I am interpreting Firefangledfeathers and Swideswipe9th correctly, there are now five editors (including the X-editor) who have recently expressed support for the content in one sense or the other and four non-topic-banned editors who have objected to the content - two of them having most recently done so almost six months ago. Given the clarity of the pre-December status quo and the lack of clarity of the December discussion (which still reads as including the tendentious arguments of the now-topic-banned editor, which might be misleading to new readers), you don't have consensus for anything except, apparently, in your own mind.
As far as the discussion above, which you linked, I will quote here the remarks with which I concluded that discussion:

Crossroads, you can't simply decide that something has consensus when 50%+1 of editors agree with you but lacks consensus when no matter how many editors disagree with you. That isn't how anything works.

Newimpartial (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Two of them having most recently done so almost six months ago - yeah, they haven't been very active in this topic area for a while... what's up with that? It's such a tremendously productive and worthwhile editing environment over here in WP:GENSEX topic areas!  Tewdar  09:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
And anyway, that previous discussion was not about the lede, was it?  Tewdar  10:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Apart from the "Sexuality and gender" section, in which trans / intersex men appear to comprise at least two-thirds of the content for some reason, there does not appear to be any other reference to trans men except in the lede. There may be other arguments for the inclusion of these groups in the intro, but WP:LEDEFOLLOWSBODY is probably not one of them.  Tewdar  10:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
    • In this instance, my BOLD and IAR recommendation is to use LEADFOLLOWSBODY as an argument to include more sourced discussion of gender (including gender roles and gender identity) in the body, rather than trimming the lead. Newimpartial (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
      • Wouldn't that just mean the body is going to suffer issues of WEIGHT? As an example, take the bike article. I decide that down hill mountain bike racing is my thing so I push for inclusion in the lead. Editors push back based on LEADFOLLOWBODY so I hugely expand the limited details on mountain bikes to include all sorts of down hill bike specific content (technologies, history, racing, noted riders etc). I can then point to the body and say, "the lead doesn't reflect how much down hill content is in the body!" That may be true but only because I used my personal preferences instead of NPOV ("representing fairly, proportionately,") when adding content to the body. The down hill content may rightly reflect the relative weight of my thinking on the subject but not of a broader range of sources. This is exactly what you are proposing here. I can appreciate that this is a subtopic that is significant to you but that doesn't mean it is proportionate to larger sources on this topic. Springee (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
        • My premise is that, in the real world, most of the high quality reliable sources on this topic deal with men in terms of gender - more gender role than gender identity, but some of each and some of other aspects of gender. The current version of this article overrepresents both biological sex as an aspect of this topic and also offers a rather over-elaborate (and poor) treatment of "masculinity". This article could uncharitably be read as offering a biological essence of "men" and following on that theme by drawing out the cultural or psychological qualities of XY (etc.) males - 20th century pseudoscience as appropriated by the manosphere. I mean, don't get me wrong, Woman has issues, but it is a positive font of wisdom compared to this article. Fixing that in light of the actual sourcing of the topic would by no means be UNDUE. Newimpartial (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
            • So if I gather a bunch of RS articles on down hill mountain biking and add them to the bike article it's not a WEIGHT issues because I found high quality sources on the small part of the total topic that I happen to be interested in. That is your argument here. You aren't saying, "here are sources on the broad topic that show that we over represent this aspect of the topic". Your argument is still, "I think this is the most important aspect thus we need more content". I often find it interesting to look at encyclopedia.com and Britannica to see how much relative emphasis they give aspects of a topic. Essentially, what do the profesionals think is the correct balance. I would do that for the topic "Man" except they don't have an article on the subject. Britannica doesn't have a topic "Man". The closest seems to be "Human Being" which doesn't appear to have a subtopic on transgender. Springee (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
              • I don't think that's what Newimpartial was saying. But I agree that the differences between this site, on the one hand, and Britannica and encyclopedia.com, on the other, are often very large, especially when it comes to gensex or politics articles...  Tewdar  17:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
              • Springee, to pursue your analogy, what I'm actually saying is that in effect, prior editors have already delved into the mountain biking content (presumably citing the kewl online magz covering the topic) while leaving out the bicycles-as-transportation content that dominates the high-quality, academic sources. Newimpartial (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
                • But the problem is you are claiming the topic is under represented without showing it. I can't show down hill MT biking is under represented by citing sources on DH mtb'ing any more than you can show transgender topics are under represented in this article by citing articles about trangenderism. You need to cite broader sources to do that. Springee (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
                  • But my claim has nothing to do with transgender topics, much less articles about transgenderism (sic.: that is an offensive expression, please don't use it). What I am actually saying is that moat of the RS literature on "men" is on various aspects of "gender" - including gender identity, sure, but even more so about gender roles and other aspects of gender dynamics. Newimpartial (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
                    • I didn't realize that was considered to be an offensive term. Science Direct[3] quotes the Encyclopedia of Endocrine Diseases (Second Edition), saying it's an umbrella term and " has moved from the margins of medicine to an accepted medical issue." No mention was made of controversy around the term. Still, I will avoid the term based on your request. I don't think your view that this article needs more gender dynamics type content supports the need for transgender in the lead. Large scale gender dynamics is something that isn't inherently governed by transgender subtopics. Also, man-woman gender dynamics is something that is probably better in a primary topic on that subject since it inherently involves a comparison between primary gender roles. This might explain why the other online encyclopedias don't have separate "Man" and "Woman" topics. Springee (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. And the thing is, that in order to talk about "man" in relation to any issues of gender, the article has to define (or at least discuss definitions) of "man" as "a gender" - doing so without explicit reference to gender identities would a denial of the best sourcing, as well as defeating its own purpose in terms of clarity. Newimpartial (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Men have mammary glands

@Masterhatch, you have restored an unsourced claim that men don't have mammary glands. I removed the claim that men don't have mammary glands because it's not true. All humans, regardless of sex or gender, are born with mammary glands. In children and typical adult males, these mammary glands are under-developed, but they still exist.

These sources might help you:

  • The endocrine system regulates mammary gland development, which occurs only under particular hormonal conditions such as those typical in female puberty and in pregnancy. As a result, people with typically male bodies do not usually have mature mammary glands. Mammary glands in typically male breasts are often described as "vestigial." Medical evidence has documented cases in which steroid use and other factors that cause hormonal changes can lead to mammary gland development and milk production in people with typically male bodies. [4]
  • Until a child reaches puberty, the mammary glands of male and female children are similar. At puberty, however, the female mammary glands are stimulated by estrogen and progesterone. The alveolar glands and ducts enlarge, and adipose tissue is deposited around these structures.  The male breast does not develop because there is no hormonal stimulus to do so.  If a male is given female hormones, however, he too develops breasts. [5]
  • In humans the mammary glands develop to the same immature stage in both the male and female fetus and remain the same in both sexes during childhood. At puberty, hormonal changes in the female lead to their full development, while in the male the mammary glands remain at a rudimentary stage. [6]
  • In the male thorax, body hair is frequently present and the mammary glands are undeveloped. [7]

Also: mammary glands are the part of the body that cases breast cancer. If men didn't have them, then male breast cancer would be impossible.

I realize that the details of anatomy aren't everyone's forte, and there's a strange bit of squeamishness about men having breasts, but please don't re-add that unless and until you can spent some time Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). You can ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine or Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy if you want to make sure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Masterhatch (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
This looks like quite a 'good read' for us non biologists and makes the point well.
The reason mammals are called mammals is because they have mammary glands – [8]
That's all mammals - both Men and Women.
The difference is - apparently - that "Men have milk ducts but only a few, scattered lobules".
And so "Mammary glands or breasts are milk-producing structures found in both women and men. Only one male species of mammal can produce milk (lactate) spontaneously – the Dayak fruit bat. However, as the duct and lobe structures are immature in other mammalian males, it is not possible for them to lactate".
One suspects however that The Biology Dictionary etc. won't be considered a WP:RS by some of our more expert editors :). Lukewarmbeer (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Gallery?

Why was my edit reverted? I read MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES and the associated RfC; it initially stemmed from the African American article, because "blackness" is something ultimately subjective, (cf. one-drop rule and Logic being considered "black") and creating these galleries would approach WP:OR territory.

However, to me, this here is different, because sex is biological and not subjective (unless you're going to argue that Plato might have been bigenderfluid, but I digress)

Why pick an image of a random Indian guy (or a random Malaysian woman) when you can put a collage of people and representations from ethnicities and cultures all around the world? Is Wikipedia India-centric or Malaysia-centric now? :)

Note that I don't argue for the removal of their pictures, only for the inclusion of the collage somewhere in order to give a broader view to a reader! Synotia (moan) 19:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The relevant part of the MOS reads or similarly large human populations. Men are a large human population. Your suggestion that men are a biological category, and thus exempt from the MOS, doesn't add up. The entire point of NOETHNIC was to avoid those sorts of discussions. I have no idea what you mean about Plato, and if it is meant to be a joke, I admit I don't get it. At any rate, the discussion over what image to use in the lead has been exhaustive, and the current image should not be replaced without broad consensus. I'm not seeing a compelling reason to override the extant lead image. Nor am I seeing that we should even add the collage at all, given the MOS's stance on ethnic galleries. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Eh, I see. I just found it a cool picture, that's it... Synotia (moan) 07:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
That said, if you're interested in adding photos, this article could probably handle approximately twice as many as it has right now. For example, many men serve in the military, and almost all of them engage in some sort of paid work, and we have no photos of either soldiers or workers in the article. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature says to "Strive for variety", and that'd be good advice for this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, some high quality images would definitely enliven the place. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
still dont understand why i cant add the gallery in question Synotia (moan) 07:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Because MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY says "Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a photomontage or gallery of images of group members". In other words PEOPLEGALLERY doesn't just cover ethnic groups. Nigej (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, if there's ever a discussion (on a more general page) about revising MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY, I'd be interested in that discussion. (I just don't see that the rationales for the guideline hold up; sure, a gallery can't be 100% representative, but a single image obviously can't either! And it's also not as if a single image prevents the sort of disputes that happen about galleries, e.g. people who didn't like that there was a Black trans woman in the gallery at Woman never shut up about it, sure, but it's not as if discussions about changing the images on Woman and Man have stopped now that they're single images: here we are having another discussion about the suitability of this image right now.) Perhaps the guideline should be reconsidered some day. But as things stand, the guideline is clear, and discussion here isn't going to change it. (And I think, as far as single images go, the current image is fine.) -sche (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you, I also don't see it as some kind of guarantee of consensus. Synotia (moan) 08:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Removal of a word

"Like most other male mammals, a man's genome usually inherits an X chromosome from the mother and a Y chromosome from the father."

Delete the word "usually". A girl has 2X chromosomes so she can only contribute an X, while a boy has an X and a Y and can give one of those. YOLO WOLF (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Not in line with what reliable sources say. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree about RS here. Pfizer seem to think otherwise
One of those pairs are the chromosomes that determine the biological sex of a child – girls have an XX pair and boys have an XY pair, with very rare exceptions in certain disorders. Females always pass an X chromosome onto their offspring. If the father passes on an X chromosome, the baby will be genetically female, and if the father passes on a Y chromosome, the baby will be genetically male.
Using "usually" may encompass those very rare exceptions but is undue.
We wouldn't feel the need to say 'cars usually have wheels' even though every single car may not so I think usually should go.
Expansion on this in the Lead would be too much but could go with a bracketed (with very rare exceptions in certain disorders) and an expansion in the article - if we feel that the rare exceptions need to go into the Lead at all (I don't).
This would be more pertinent in 'Woman' because there is evidence that "More Women Than Expected Are Genetically Men". Even though this is still only around 1 in 15,000. I wouldn't go for usually there either mind you.
What do you think Captain? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 10:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure Pfizer, the drugmaker, is an RS in this context. I agree that the usually wording is perhaps more applicable on the woman page, but it doesn't make it inapplicable here. See [9] For example, Klinefelter's syndrome, which affects one in 500 to 1000 men, which is quite a high incidence and one of the most common genetic conditions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Good example and I'd say that level of prevalence means a mention of the exceptions in the Lead is warranted.
Our article XY sex-determination system says
"There are various exceptions, such as individuals with Klinefelter syndrome (who have XXY chromosomes), Swyer syndrome (women with XY chromosomes), and XX male syndrome (men with XX chromosomes), however these exceptions are rare".
Can we settle on a text something like:
Like most other male mammals, a man's genome inherits an X chromosome from the mother and a Y chromosome from the father (with rare exceptions in certain disorders, for example Klinefelter's syndrome).
Possibly with the addition of a link to XY sex-determination system ? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Well, I imagine the other reason "usually" was chosen is because of trans and intersex men, so I'm not necessarily a fan of calling out things like Klinefelters in the lead when more than just that went into it. It's a lead, we don't need to explain all the intricacies, and thus "usually" is good enough and encapsulates what is necessary. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Ok. Well lets see if we get any consensus on that either way while this topic is active. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
A similar discussion opened two months ago at Talk:Woman#"Typically" women inherit XX chromosomes and are capable of pregnancy. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC on footnote in lede

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is rough consensus for option B. Note for implementation: two editors supported adding the footnote to the end of the first sentence rather than in the middle. There was no voiced opposition to that specific location, so it may be the correct way to start.

As for reasoning, by the end of this RfC, there were broadly three options. (option A) No change (option B) Short footnote, and (Other/D/E/F) which recommended longer footnotes or additional phrasing of some form in the lead. (note option C was not preferred by any)

Editors who explicitly approved of option A were roughly equal in numbers to editors who explicitly approved of option B. Between these two options, the arguments were slightly in favor of option B:

There were arguments for option A that suggested either the current phrasing was not confusing or that confusion could be resolved by reading male. Other editors felt that it could be confusing, and some felt that requiring the users to read male to undestand could turn out more confusing, as the focus of that article was sufficiently different. There was a brief discussion of splitting Man (biology) and Man (gender) but there wasn't much traction. There was some thought about using the phrasing "male gender" but consensus didn't develop around that. Ultimately the discussion demonstrates that there is some level of confusion.
There were arguments for option A that suggested inclusion would be UNDUE, however evidence was presented, suggesting that common usage covers the multiple concepts.
Another argument for option A was that the concepts were one and the same in most cases, but other editors didn't agree with the line of argument, there was no clear consensus on this point.
Some editors in support of option B found a basic utility in the clarification, while some editors in support of option A considered it a net negative, no clear consensus on this point.

Finally we must consider editors who preferred Other options (labeled D, E, F, or Other). All of these editors desired further clarification either through a longer footnote or by further text in the lead. The short footnote of option B can be viewed as something of a compromise for these editors.

As such, with both the strength of argument, and as a convenient compromise we arrive at option B. (non-admin closure) —siroχo 09:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Should the lede sentence of Man, "A man is an adult male human", include a footnote saying that male may refer to sex or gender?

As it is now, some readers may read "male" as sex, and others may read "male" as gender, which may result in confusion. So, some options are:

  • A - Keep it as it is: "A man is an adult male human."
  • B - Add a footnote saying "Male may refer to sex or gender."
  • C - Add a footnote saying "Male in this case meaning belonging to the sex which typically produces sperm, or to the gender which is typically associated with it." (using the wiktionary definition)
  • Other - suggest another idea if you think something else could work.

We can of course add references to the statement, like from Merriam Webster, OED, and Cambridge English Dictionary if needed.

Edit on April 27 2023: I'm adding a better alternative "E" as a reply to this message.

Born25121642 (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Other/D or B Option D - Inline the footnote by rephrasing the first sentence to "A man is an adult human of the male sex or gender identity". Having this as an inlined clarification seems like a neater solution to me than putting this into a footnote that many people just won't read. Though if there's not enough support for inlining this, then I prefer B for its simplicity. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
    Also, because this issue also keeps happening at Woman, I would suggest that whatever solution we find a consensus for here, if it is different from the status quo, we adapt in principle for that article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
    That makes sense to me. Born25121642 (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
  • B At the end of the first sentence, not weirdly in the middle (which looks unprofessional and like we're unduly second guessing the word). This is what I was arguing for in the above thread. I think it should resolve the longstanding confusion that readers seem to have about the topic. The first sentence *is* correct, so I would oppose actually changing the text of it. A man is an adult male human, and if you go to male, you'll see that male may refer to sex or gender. But a lot of users don't click through to male, so having the footnote will put that clarification close at hand. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
    I have to ask, how many of the readers who don't click through the wikilink to male will actually click or hover on the footnote? Yes B is an improvement over the current version hence why I support it as my second preference, but the clarification that male has dual meaning would still be hidden behind a click or hover by putting it into a footnote. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
    I think changing the wording would be redundant, and actually increase the amount of confused readers. I suspect that folks would then be clamoring for us to elaborate about the sex/gender distinction in the lead, and that would be out of place. I also think it would increase the amount of gender critical trolls who so love these talk pages. I think this strikes the right balance between no change, and rewording the first sentence. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
    Wikinav has the stats for how many people go from this article to Male (1.27% of the people reading Male; also, 1.58% of the people reading this article started at Male).
    I don't think we have any information about footnotes in any individual article, but we could do a back of the envelope calculation from the Wikipedia-wide average. People click on one of those little blue numbers in approximately 0.3% of page views, so if this page is average (although long articles get fewer clicks on refs, so this one probably gets fewer than average), and if clicking on refs is evenly distributed across all 80 refs in the article (it's probably not, and refs at the start probably get more clicks than average), then we could estimate that 0.004% of people arriving at this page would click on the footnote. That's one click per 25,000 page views, or approximately one person every three weeks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
  • B at the end of the sentence, per CaptainEek. I came here from the RfC notice, and I'll confess to having only quickly skimmed the long discussion above. But it seems to me that the note is a reasonable approach to a situation where one should not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. I see some encyclopedic value in adding the bit of clarification. I also can easily see rationales for then qualifying what is meant by "sex" and "gender", and that could potentially continue down the road for a long way. But it's only the lead sentence, and there's a reason why our articles don't try to be single-sentence length. Dear reader: read on, for a lot more details. And I agree that it is better to keep the note at the end of the sentence, not in the middle. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
  • B, but "male", not male (just plain English). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
  • B - With reservations I think if it is indeed the case that Male here ambiguously means Male gender or Male sex (assignment), then we should clarify this ambiguity. This is certainly buttressed on the presumption that until recently, all sources would have used the two interchangeably thus we cannot reliably discern whether they meant Male gender, Male sex, or some amorphous composition of Male sex and Male gender. My reservation with the above is that whether this gives undue weight to the ambiguity between sex and gender. If this ambiguity is in very few situations, adding this footnote could be at odds with WP:DUE, whereby we overemphasize the likelihood and prominence of this ambiguity beyond what is mentioned in reliable sources. I'm happy to be challenged on my vote, and indeed we should weigh the benefits with the drawbacks in a civil manner. Theheezy (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Other/D or B I agree with the proposal made above by @Sideswipe9th. Sidenote: I skimmed the article and it seems to be very biology based. It projects a bit of a "there are men that don't have XY chromosomes, but let's not dwell on that" attitude. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
    @Random person no 362478479, @Thebiguglyalien last August and @CaptainEek this past month have made significant improvements to the balance, but I'd love to see you expand on what they've contributed. We need more very basic information, such as education levels and social expectations about employment. A lot of it really just needs someone to sit down with major sources (e.g., reports from the World Bank) and pull together the "obvious" facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
  • A - Keep it as it is: "A man is an adult male human." That's pretty self-explanatory, and that's always been the case. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Option A - It is enormously WP:UNDUE weight on a technical distinction that is very peripheral to the topic, and does not even apply to the vast majority of men or to the sources on them. Likewise, the vast majority of definitions in sources align with option A, without anything like this. I don't see articles on men in other places immediately frame the whole topic as about sex vs. gender identity, especially since these are usually one and the same. The mention of trans men in the lead, but not in the first sentence, is sufficient - we do not need to cram everything into the first sentence. Crossroads -talk- 18:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
    It is not undue. It is about "what is a man?" This should be clear to you by now. Born25121642 (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
    It is a distinction that goes to the very heart of the topic. The term "man" can refer to biological sex or gender identity. Therefore we have to either split this into two articles, e.g. one "Man (biology)" and one "Man (gender)", or treat both equally in this article. How many people fall under either heading is absolutely irrelevant. As it is the article gives massively undue weight to the biological definition. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Option A - I don't see an advantage to changing this. At the same time this seems to put undue emphasis on an aspect that in almost all contexts are one and the same. Only in a few limited cases would we have a case where gender and sex aren't one and the same. If we are talking about how a "man dresses" then the potential difference wouldn't matter as this is a "male" thing, not a sex thing. If we are talking about biological aspects then it's only a "sex thing". Springee (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
    Are sex and gender the same? Or are these different concepts? If the "sex" of a person refers to their gametic sex? "Sex" in proper current usage refers to gametic sex, rather than other sexual characteristics. Born25121642 (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Option A. Maybe a separate "Man (biology)" and one "Man (gender)" article will be the solution. It would certainly put an end to attempts at changing the scientific definition of a human male in Wikipedia. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 10:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
    I think splitting would indeed be the best course. Right now we have two different (though not unrelated) things for which the same word is used in one article. Two scientific definitions -- two articles. Kind of surprised that's not the case already. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 10:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
    I think that would be an unnecessary and unjustified WP:POVSPLIT, which would unduly divide editor effort. This article is already barebones as it is. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
    I agree that there would be POV-fork perils with a split. I also think that it's desirable to do the same things for content about "Man" and content about "Woman", and not have them be inconsistent. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
    I also agree that a split would create major POV fork issues. Crossroads -talk- 00:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
    I agree, too. I would add: think how tedious and often impossible it would be to determine, for each and every RS statement about men, which definition that particular RS was using and hence which article it could go in, plus how extremely duplicative the articles would be since most statements about men in one sense are also true of men in the other sense since the same individuals make up the bulk of both groups. -sche (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
    I don't see how it would be a POVSPLIT. The other problems are very real. A split would definitely require a lot of coordination and advanced planning. A simpler possibility would be to simply fork out the biology section. That way there would be a clean cut uncontroversial (or at least far less controversial) article about biology and another article dealing with cultural, societal, legal, historical, etc. issues. Personally I would favour separating biology from the rest even if there were no questions regarding definitions. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
    Re splitting the biology content into a separate article: isn't that Male? (Certainly we might be able to move some biology content from this article to that one, but that's probably best discussed in a new section, and not in the middle of this RFC, ha.) -sche (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
    There's overlap. But that article is not just about humans and not just adults. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment - Because the primary usage of "male" refers to gametic sex, and not social gender, having "man" introduced as "adult male human" is confusing. If the primary usage of "male" were social gender, this would not be an issue. But the primary usage of "male" refers to gametic sex, and the secondary usage is in reference to gender, which I believe is at the root of the confusion.
Born25121642 (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Option A The footnote makes the already short lead sentence clunkier than it needs to be. If readers are confused by the word "male", they can just click the male wikilink to read further. Some1 (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment - I was notified of this discussion at Talk:Woman#"Woman" refers to gender or sex?. From my view, a footnote may be less helpful than Other, a brief expansion, perhaps: "A man is an adult male human. Men include adults with a male gender even if they were assigned a different sex at birth." (Cambridge Dictionary, already cited in the lead, Merriam Webster definition of male). A brief expansion seems supported by MOS:INTRO and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY; most of the article content isn't presented as related to biology. The article seems based on a range of academic and scientific perspectives, which fit within a broad concept, per WP:NPOV. Beccaynr (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Most of it isn't about transgender individuals, either. Crossroads -talk- 13:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Option A. I don't believe the current introduction will confuse the reader. A footnote in the first sentence is cumbersome and distracting. (To be clear, it's fine to discuss these nuances elsewhere in the article.) PieLover3141592654 (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
New suggestion: Option E - Add a footnote saying "The primary usage of "male" is in reference to gametic sex, and the secondary usage is in reference to social gender." This is because in most sources, the primary usage is in reference to gametic/biological sex. I believe someone who wanted to make a bold edit to this end would be justified in their actions. Born25121642 (talk) 09:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Option A. I really don't think that there's a need for a footnote in the lead stating "male may refer to sex or gender" as for but a miniscule % of the population, there is no difference. The average reader will not be confused (as it suggests at the top of this rfc) and need clarification. Masterhatch (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Option A thanks Lukewarmbeer (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Option B. Footnotes are cheap, and there is adequate sourcing and content in the article to support the clarification in at least a footnote. --Aquillion (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
New new suggestion: "'Option F'": "A man is an adult human of the male gender"
I'm putting this here because I suggested and it was reverted by Crossroads, but I don't think that the revert's justifications were clearly spelled out.
Crossroads justified the reversion with Undue weight; text of the sources; and previous discussion, none of which I think are sufficient.
1. re undue weight: my understanding of the Due and undue weight policy is that it has to do with balancing points of view. What is the alternative point of view that is not being given due weight with that phrasing? I don't think anyone would dispute that a man is of the male gender. I think some people might dispute whether or not gender equals sex all of the time, but I think the phrasing "male gender" here is maximally inclusive of all possible viewpoints. Those that do not acknowledge the sex/gender distinction and treat them as synonyms would be happ; those that do acknowledge the sex/gender distinction would also be happy. By avoiding the term "gender identity" or "biological sex" it has nothing in particular to do with trans identities.
2. As to text of the sources: conceded, you're right, that's the language in both particular dictionary entries. But there are many other sources that say something to the effect of "a man is a person of the male gender," or some close paraphrase. I don't know that they're substantially more authoritative—and expanding to "male gender" is not in conflict with them. As I argue in point 1, it is either an exact synonym (to those that do not acknowledge a distinction) or it is a rephrasing that is more precise (to those that do acknowledge a distinction between sex and gender)
3. Re previous discussion. I'm actually having trouble finding whether wording substantially similar to mine was considered before. I think that this version is novel and is elegant, by eschewing more confusing/specific terms like "gender identity" Recognitor (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Sourcing for my contention that the plain term 'gender' alone is the most inclusive of possible views contained in options A B and C:
From Merriam Webster's definition of gender:
"2
a
SEX sense 1a (: either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures)
b
the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
c
GENDER IDENTITY
"
Seems like it hits them all! Recognitor (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Option B. Oh hey, this is still running. This briefly came up in a parallel discussion at Talk:Woman § Proposed first paragraph again. Am in favor of some-such footnote on Man and Woman. Dictionaries like Merriam-Webster make special note of the fact that "male" and "female" can refer to either the biological (sex) or sociological (gender) depending on context; this is an article about both, so we should as well. Without clarification, linking male to an article about sex inadvertantly encodes in wikivoice the POV that gender is essentially sex-based, something our sources problematize. This implication not helped by the co-opting of "adult female" as a transphobic dogwhistle. The perennial counterargument is the basic WP:BLUESKY fact that male includes both sex and gender is used, so to avoid confusion, it seems sensible to actually encode that fact into the article. Confusion of this matter demonstrably occurs, frequently and repeatedly in this topic area. Some of the A rationales consist of re-asserting this POV that male does in fact strictly or chiefly refer to sex traits (true in biological but not social contexts), or that transgender people are statistically insignificant outliers, neither of which are policy-based. I think it's absurd to say that adding one more note would make the lede "clunky"; footnotes take up comically little space. Most first-time readers will skip it, and that's fine. Its purpose is as a semantic clarification of what the article is actually saying (a descriptive definition of women as female adults, rather than a prescriptive definition of women as AFAB). The benefit to trans readers (who can quickly ascertain that the free encyclopedia is not overtly dismissing gender identity out of hand) is substantial. We can absolutely have our cake and eat it too. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
This discussion has been stalled for a while, but I'm very interested in its outcome. I've placed a reminder of this discussion's existence at Talk:Woman. If nothing new arises, can someone close this? –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Exact footnote phrasing

The long-running and recently closed RfC above generated rough consensus for the addition of a footnote with the text Male can refer to sex or gender, with consensus to cite Merriam-Webster's (having a gender identity that is the opposite of female). I think a link to gender identity would better reflect the source on this matter. The phrasing itself was not heavily discussed or workshopped (most arguments were simply for or against the addition of a footnote at all) so I think there's room for small variations. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 14:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The wording should be what was decided on by the RfC. The closer made a close call but chose option B ""Male may refer to sex or gender", which has now been implemented, with links to "sex" and "gender" per the wording. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
RFCs aren't binding decisions (except for the very rare instances in which ArbCom declares that it will be binding for six months). If someone's got a better idea, then that's worth discussing.
That said, there's more to "gender" than just gender identity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Misinformation about sex disparity

“In most societies, men have more legal and cultural rights than women, and misogyny is far more prevalent than misandry in society.” This is completely false, in fact women are typically treated better than men since they are protected, whereas men are forced to put up with unfavourable treatment. 202.173.162.42 (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I would agree but they will not allow that change. Firstly you'd have to cite a reputable source. Secondly, they would find some reason to quickly remove that change, as when two conflicting you will always see the authority-granted editors remove the conflicting data that does align with their view of the world. Sadly instead of striving for an NPOV, you will see that the it is certain agenda that decides which sources are reputable or not. Almost ironically, the editors will remove statements in biographical articles from that subject of that very article. Now of course they only do this people they dislike. You can look at the talk pages for two political opposed living people, and you will see the the rationale used to keep self-description in one person's bio, will be deemed as an invalid rationale for another living person. You will notice that this different standard is used universally based upon the political leaning of the person whom the biographical article describes.
Compare the current US president's and the prior US president's talk page, and you will find the rationale for source inclusion/exclusion directly contradicts the other president's talk page.
You can read or listen the Wikipedia founder opine about the uneven handling of any topic where any political interest lies.
In fact he explains that the very concept of NPOV ("neutral point of view") is unobtainable and a self-contradictory oxymoron. No "point of view" is "neutral"
What should be the standard is "objectivity". "Point of view", i.e. one's opinion on something, should not even be allowed, unless explicitly labellex as such in the article.
What should be in the article are facts, events, data, etc - not "points of view".
Because of this problem we get opinions ("points of view") stated as fact - as you clearly found with the claim about men having privileges that women do not. If the article stated tbat, in certain non-western nations women are prohibited from certain things; that would be fine, and not a point of view but a statement of fact .
Instead, Wikipedia is overrun with opinion, and not fact.
In short: the change you are asking for, even when you cite a reputable source for it, will NEVER be allowed to be left in this article.
If the only the founder had chosen "objectivity" as the standard, instead of the easily manipulated "neutral POINT OF VIEW", maybe, just maybe, we could have objectivity in Wikipedia and not sweeping generalizations that are utterly untrue - like the statement you point out is objectively untrue, and in fact antithetical to the truth of sex/gender privilege in modern "Western Cultures":
“In most societies, men have more legal and cultural rights than women, and misogyny is far more prevalent than misandry in society.” This is flatly untrue, as you point out - yet no matter how factual an "NPOV" source is that contradicts this statement, the point will be allowed to be made because of the homogeneity of Wikipedia's editors' politics. 99.75.147.243 (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
I should have proof-read that reply before publishing. 99.75.147.243 (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia co-founder says site is now ‘propaganda’ for left-leaning ‘establishment
https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-is-now-propaganda-for-left-leaning-establishment/ 99.75.147.243 (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

New article on 'male gender'?

I think that, at the risk of proliferation, in addition to the wikipedia article on male sex now linked to in the lede, we should have an article on 'male gender', focusing cognitive/social/identity aspects of the identity.

Will get to looking for sources.

A proposed lede for male gender would be something along the lines of:

"Male gender is a subjectively felt social identity associated with attributes of the male sex" Recognitor (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you're looking for Masculinity? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I also considered this but I think they are conceptually distinct. Masculinity is one level more abstract than male gender — a woman could be described as masculine, for example—there's a whole section in the article masculinity on 'masculinity in women'—but still retain her female gender.
Some content in the masculinity article does overlap with what I was envisioning, especially in the nature vs. nurture section. Recognitor (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
In fact the article femininity says this in the lede:
"It is conceptually distinct from both the female biological sex and from womanhood, as all humans can exhibit feminine and masculine traits, regardless of sex and gender."
To me creating pages for male gender (/masculine gender/manhood) and female gender (/feminine gender/womanhood) would complete the playing board, as it were. In this quote from the femininity article it's clear that we have an article for the concept 'female biological sex' and femininity but not for the gender. Recognitor (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Or is that not how it's seen in the sociology literature? — it's not my area expertise, so don't want to stomp over something I don't know about. I'm having a harder time than I thought finding sources that describe male gender or female gender qua gender. Recognitor (talk) 04:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
We've had this discussion on the Woman page, and we've so far resisted creating "Female (gender)". There is certainly a decent group that have suggested that outcome, but we don't yet have consensus for it. At any rate, I remain opposed to it for WP:POVFORK reasons, among others, not least of which there'd be a lack of sources. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
I think that "female gender (concept)" and "male gender (concept)" would avoid POV fork by being sufficiently specific. The articles would be about the idea of male gender and the idea of female gender, rather than an alternate definition of female and male competing with sex. All that the existing "male" article says on the side of the conceptual category is the following:
"Usage[edit | edit source]
In humans, the word male can be used in the context of gender, such as for gender role or gender identity of a man or boy. For example, according to Merriam-Webster, "male" can refer to "having a gender identity that is the opposite of female". According to the Cambridge Dictionary, "male" can mean "belonging or relating to men"."
The page needn't be long — I think as a "concept defining the shared attributes of being a man or boy" it is pretty self explanatory. I think its self-explanatory nature is behind the source thing—many many sources address the concept of male gender and female gender, but don't spend a ton of time defining them because it is self explanatory.
It could link to relevant pages like man, boy, and male; explain its application to gender identity/gender role; include a brief mention of the English pronouns; and a brief mention of differing views of the concept—with biological sex as a sufficient condition or not. Is there a way I can sandbox this? Recognitor (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
To give more details on what @CaptainEek is referring to-- we had a stub Female (gender) article, and that led to one of the longest AfDs in wikipedia history where the decision was draftify, partly because there was significant support for keep. The article has been sitting at Draft:Female (gender) for a while now, but it has made some progress since the AfD. The void century 15:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
The article Man is the article about people who have male gender identity. Scholars in the specialized scientific discipline (men's studies) don't call people who have "biological male sex" men. At least in recent years. So we also shouldn't.--Reprarina (talk) 08:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I gather that Wikipedia editors have taken the view that this article should say something about:
  • biological males,
  • people with a masculine gender identity,
  • masculine gender expression, and
  • the gendered social roles of men.
That would include, e.g., "Men are taller than women", "men have an internal psychological sense of being men", "men wear trousers instead of dresses", and "men are expected to protect others".
You might be interested in WP:YESPOV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I hope they do what you suggest, as it would highlight the overwhelming bias omnipresent in current-day English Wikipedia; a problem Wikipedia-founder Jimmy Wales has lamented about time and time again.
The only reason they don't oblige your request is because the editors know that such an action would irreparably damage Wikipedia's prestige and image with more than 50% of the English speaking world.
I came to this article to see that very bias, and very surprised to see that they gone out of their way (in this one article) to remove such content, as the non-official editors didn't get the memo.
But hopefully the editors are shamed by a certain political leankg population in cave g to your command, and allowing the hilarious non-sense that other editors have been trying to get added to this page. As that would hasten the downfall of Wikipedia and allow for something to supplant it for those seeking pure objectivity and scientific accuracy. 99.75.147.243 (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Man/Archive_9&oldid=1216691502"