Talk:Adult human female#rfc 63B15FF

@Tataral has just added a definition of 'female' taken from Merriam-Webster that refers to "gender identity".[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female] However, this is the third definition of the term, coming below the primary definition of (as an adjective) "1 a(1) : of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs" and "1 a(2) botany : having or producing only pistils or pistillate flowers" or (as a noun) "1 a: a female person : a woman or a girl b: an individual of the sex that is typically capable of bearing young or producing eggs 2: a pistillate plant." The page is about "'Adult human female" where 'female' is a noun, not an adjective. The primary definitions as they relate to sex seem more appropriate and relevant to a discussion of gender-critical views. Many of the other definitions are also more aligned with the sex definition, as opposed to the gender one cited and I'd propose the primary noun definition, ie "1 a: a female person : a woman or a girl b: an individual of the sex that is typically capable of bearing young or producing eggs" (with the rest of that sentence reworded accordingly, somehow). Zeno27 (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:I disagree. The point of this article is to address the use of "adult human female" as an anti-trans slogan, which incorrectly claims that "female" excludes trans women. Your suggestion to prioritize definitions based solely on reproductive capacity misrepresents the reality that "female" includes trans women, as recognized in modern definitions. --Tataral (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

::It's my understanding that's not the meaning used in gender-critical discourse, which is what you're trying to describe here. I can't see it helps quoting a secondary definition and ignoring the primary one when that appears to be the intended meaning. This could be rescued if there was a RS you could cite that showed the secondary meaning was the one relied on in gender-critical discourse. There's still the issue that you used an adjectival definition when the word in the phrase is a noun. Zeno27 (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:::The source cited, Merriam-Webster, explicitly defines female (noun) as "a female person," which refers back to the adjective form defined above on the same page where one of the definitions is "having a gender identity that is the opposite of male." This makes it clear that the term female includes trans women, and the cited definition is directly relevant to the discussion. --Tataral (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Sorry, I was asking if there was a citation that showed that your meaning is the one intended in gender-critical discourse. However, the definition doesn't stop there: it goes on to say ": a woman or a girl b: an individual of the sex that is typically capable of bearing young or producing eggs". Zeno27 (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::There are many sources included in the article that discuss how the term is used by this movement to exclude trans women. The article does not say that the cited definition is the only definition. Discussing pistillate plants is not relevant to this article. --Tataral (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::I didn't suggest discussing pistillate plants but can you select a source for this meaning of the term to add to the sentence? Zeno27 (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

::The title of the article doesn't suggest that the 'point' is to address the use of the term as an anti-trans slogan. If that is what the article was created to describe, then the title should reflect that. 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:F086:443D:3F49:9BCC (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

{{archive top}}

The oxford english dictionary definition of woman is adult human female. Why is this article about the literal definition of woman being portrayed as anti transgender? Mazerks (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:Nice try, but the OED definition actually seems to be "An adult female human being". Did you think we wouldn't look it up? DanielRigal (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

::That's literally the exactly same thing. You are literally clutching at straws. Mazerks (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh, come on. Please don't pretend to be stupid. You can see that these are very different phases but, even if the terms were equivalent, which they are not, it would still be unacceptable to glibly misquote the OED.

:::A woman is a human being, not a female. To literally dehumanise women as "females" (as a noun) is misogyny. (Yes, I know how to use the word "literally" correctly.)

:::OK, but let's pretend that you don't already know this. Lets do a bit of semantics. A big red dog is a dog that is both big and red. That's a dog. Not "a big". Not "a red". We would not describe a big red dog as a "big dog red" or a "red dog big" because the only noun here is dog and that goes at the end of the phrase, after the adjectives.

:::* "adult female human being": adjective, adjective, compound noun. Grammatically correct.

:::* "adult human female": adjective, adjective, adjective or adjective, noun, adjective. Grammatically incorrect either way.

:::Where I do think that people misunderstand the phrase "adult human female" is in considering it primarily transphobic. It is actually equally dehumanising to all women by redefining them from people to "females". It is primarily misogynist. What makes it transphobic is that it is currently being used in a way that is aggressively targeted at trans women. There is nothing to stop it being used against cis women later. DanielRigal (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::::My dictionary (Concise Oxford Dictionary) says that ‘female’ is an adjective and a noun. The meaning of the noun is given as ‘a female person, animal, or plant’. An important use of the word ‘female’ as a noun is that it covers both girls and women. Referring to a woman as an ‘adult human female’ is not dehumanising or misogynistic. Using the expression ‘cis women’ is misogynistic, because it implies that biological women don’t really count as women. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC) (PS I’m not accusing you of being misogynistic.) Sweet6970 (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Careful. That could easily be interpreted as trolling. DanielRigal (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::::The Merriam Webster list “female” as an adjective and a noun and a synonym for woman, so your assertion that a woman is not a female is wrong. We follow the sources, not personal opinions. Jorgebox4 (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::::How is calling a woman 'female' dehumanising? Have you lost the plot? The Wikipedia page Woman defines a woman as an adult female human, so you disagree with not only the dictionary definition but also the Wikipedia definition. Mazerks (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Also, on that example of 'big red dog', that makes no sense at all. No wonder you don't believe in IQ. Your dog example does not apply because 'red' and 'big' are not nouns; on the contrary, 'female' is a noun. Furthermore, calling a dog big and red is simply describing a dog, it is not racist or fatphobic. Calling women 'females' is a way of describing their sex/characteristics, it is not misogynistic. On your logic, calling gay people gay people would be homophobic, calling transgender people transgender people would be transphobic and calling black people black people would be racist. Mazerks (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::You are so close to getting it that it's painful to read. Yes, calling a gay person "a gay" would be homophobic. Calling a black person "a black" would be racist. Calling a trans person "a trans" would be transphobic. Pretty much the only time a man or a woman is called "a male" or "a female" is in police descriptions where they can't rule out the possibility that the unknown person that they are talking about is/was not an adult. I think you understand this. I think you know that, if you referred to a black person to their face as "a black", you would not be making any friends that day. I don't see any point in pretending otherwise. DanielRigal (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::Pal, it doesn't compare at all. That is because 'black', 'gay' and 'trans' are not nouns. Female is a noun. Calling a woman a female is not misogynistic or discriminatory. No one is going to let you rewrite the dictionary based on your own opinion and preferences. Mazerks (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Some sources and people do consider nouning "female" to be objectivizing; see wikt:female#Usage notes which lists three. I personally tend to associate calling women "females" with the manosphere/incel/pickup space in which we are, in fact, objects.

:::::::But this is mostly beside the point; I don't think this is going anywhere. Let's stick to source-based and policy-based discussion focused on constructive improvements to the article. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 14:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::In spite of your views, I prefer to conform with proper grammar and it is not misogynistic or discriminatory to agree with the dictionary, which clearly states female is both a noun and an adjective. Using 'male' and 'female' as nouns does not imply either are objects and are not intended to mean as such. Mazerks (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Actually, in your example "adult human female", 'adult' and 'human' are both adjectives, and 'female' is a noun. This is perfectly correct grammar. By the way, 'red' can also be a noun as well as an adjective. Don't ping me.  Tewdar  10:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::If you wish so badly not to be involved in an obviously unproductive conversation, it may behoove you not to try to get the last word in. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 11:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::Well, to be honest this discussion should probably have been closed after Tataral's excellent response below, before Daniel's 'grammar' lesson started.  Tewdar  12:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:The article is not about the definition of woman. That article is called woman. This article is specifically about the anti-trans slogan or dogwhistle popularized back in 2018 by Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull and now used within the broader anti-gender movement and by the Trump administration, among others. --Tataral (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I tried not to comment, really I did. But if calling women "females" is {{tq|misogyny}}, then literally 😁 all of [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2021&q=%22an+adult+female%22+burial&btnG= these] recent archaeology (mostly) articles are misogynistic. Or perhaps it's okay if they're dead? Still, there's [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2021&q=%22an+adult+female%22&btnG= plenty] of other subjects where this usage is still apparently acceptable after 2021. If you're only seeing female used as a noun in {{tq|police descriptions}} or {{tq|manosphere/incel/pickup space}}, then you would probably benefit from expanding your reading horizons.

Finally, perhaps a page move to Adult human female (slogan) would be helpful?

Do not ping me back to this discussion  Tewdar  19:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:Of course, I forgot that a {{xt|female}} can be a fossil, a cadaver, and a murder suspect, contexts which aren't dehumanizing at all. This disproves my point expertly. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 11:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::Look, I see your point that in some contexts 'female' as a noun according to some sources can be somewhat depersonalized, derogatory, or dehumanizing. In many contexts, especially scientific or legal contexts it's perfectly acceptable and not dehumanizing, just somewhat depersonalized.  Tewdar  11:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with Tewdar, including the suggestion for a move. Perhaps {{u|RoxySaunders}} should stop trying to have the last word. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll admit that I made the mistake of feeding the troll on this thread but this should not be used as an excuse for an all-you-can-eat buffet for disruptive kvetching. Let's end it here. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:Pointing out your grammatical and other errors is not 'disruptive kvetching', although, like your comments to the OP, and the original comment itself, it is probably off-topic for this page. Anyway, why not close the section so we can all get on with the rest of our day?  Tewdar  16:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

An anonymous user has added the Notability tag to this article. They have not come here to explain why. On a first glance, the tag seems unjustified. There are multiple reliable references here and they seem to amount to significant coverage of the topic. I'm not removing the tag right away, and if anybody wants to try to justify the tag then we should leave it while discussion is actively ongoing. That said, tags are not meant to be used as badges of shame and, if nobody says anything to support the tag, then it should be removed. After all, that wouldn't stop anybody from revisiting the issue later. DanielRigal (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:It does not seem to be needed at this point of time. Just finished assessing the article and I gave it a Start-class. It needs more content for a C-class Article. It is very close to C-class though. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 11:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Were the redirects discussed and I missed it? If not then I propose that they be undone.

Very clearly the hate slogan is the primary topic here. Very clearly there is no other topic called "Adult human female" to require the disambiguation in brackets. The redirect to Woman seems to miss the point so badly that I am having to force myself to AGF. It's not like the normal, correct definition, Adult female human, redirects to Woman so why should Adult human female, which is a very weird definition of female and not even universally accepted as correct? It's beyond obtuse.

If this was discussed, and this was the consensus, and I missed it then fair enough but if this is just misguided redirect fiddling then lets just undo it. The current redirection is confusing and completely unnecessary. It will have the effect of ensuring that almost nobody will find the article that is the primary topic here, i.e. this one. Like I say, I'm straining to AGF so I won't follow that line of thought any further at this time. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:Agree. Given the past lengthy discussion on this subject, this move and redirect should have been discussed first. I cannot undo it, but I've retargeted Adult human female back to this page. The hatnote here is already perfectly fine, in the very unlikely case that someone searches or links adult human female in a way that is not trans-related.

:As it stands, we would need a corresponding hatnote on Woman, which is less than ideal:

:{{Redirect|Adult human female|the anti-trans hate slogan|Adult human female (hate slogan)}} –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 21:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::Ping @Mazerks @Blethering Scot. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 21:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::I don't really have any comment around the original move/redirect creation. Its not an area I feel comfortable being involved in. However if the decision is to leave the article at that title, then it makes sense for the created redirect to point to adult female, rather than be a redirect to a redirect with no disam requirement.Blethering Scot 21:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::For my part, a not-very-scientific analysis shows that more than half of the publications searchable on Google Scholar since 2021 which use the phrase "adult female human" do so in a transgender context.

::* [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22adult+human+female%22+trans+OR+transgender+OR+%22gender+ideology%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C11&as_vis=1&as_ylo=2021&as_yhi= "adult human female" trans OR transgender OR "gender ideology"] – 205 results

::* [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C11&as_ylo=2021&as_vis=1&q=%22adult+human+female%22+-trans+-transgender+-%22gender+ideology%22&btnG= "adult human female" -trans -transgender -"gender ideology"] – 115 results

::–RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 22:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

{{in progress}}: I'm working a revert of this undiscussed move (and associated redirects) based on a request over at WP:RMTR. While reverts for undiscussed and contentious moves are normally a fast process, on a sensitive topic like this it might take some time to work through, but know that someone is looking and working on this issue. TiggerJay (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}}: Due to the contentious nature of this topic, please use a full WP:RM process before moving this page, as well as using the WP:RFD before making any changes to the redirects associated with this page. TiggerJay (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

As [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Tewdar-20250209092300-MolecularPilot-20250209091300 mentioned here] by {{ping|Tewdar}}, we need sources to call them a {{tq|far-right activist}}. The Guardian did [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/25/anti-trans-activist-posie-parker-ends-new-zealand-tour-after-violent-protests-erupt describe] them as an {{tq|anti-trans activist}} at some point so that may be a suitable alternative if no reliable sources can be found. Polygnotus (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|RoxySaunders}} What do you think? Polygnotus (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:Just to let you know that I will be taking no further part in this discussion lest I be accused of {{tq|disruptive kvetching}} or my username outlined in an even worse colour in [https://shinigami-eyes.github.io/ Shinigami Eyes]. Don't ping me back here please.  Tewdar  09:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{xt|Anti-trans}} is correct.. {{xt|Far right}} was based on Hope Not Hate saying she {{xt|increasingly found support from and an overlap in views with the far right}} [https://hopenothate.org.uk/case-files-kellie-jay] which I carelessly mistook for an uncontroversial fact about her. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 13:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

::It is one of those situations where people provide a platform for and stand side by side with and don't object to the presence of et cetera. But yeah we need ironclad sources for such claims. Polygnotus (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Some [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adult_human_female&diff=prev&oldid=1274803014 ip removed] far-right. I'll add "anti-trans" back in because people generally aren't generic activists who support all causes. Polygnotus (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Golikom}} I have supplied a source. Polygnotus (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:I said you haven't cited it properly, not that you didn't provide a source Golikom (talk) 11:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

‘Anti-trans’ is supported by sources. ‘Far-right’ isn’t. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Australian TERF Holly Lawford-Smith devotes a chapter of her book Sex Matters: Essays in Gender-Critical Philosophy to defending the "woman: adult human female" meme, arguing that is a "gender-critical dogwhistle" but not a "transphobic dogwhistle", and therefore, not "harmful speech". [https://philarchive.org/archive/LAWIGS-2 The chapter's text] is accessible from Google Scholar, and her opinion might be worth referencing in the name of presenting a balance of (attributed) views. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 01:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for the link. However, I think that this para is somewhat more relevant to this article:

:{{tq|Men have defined women for thousands of years of male-dominated history; women have literally become what men wanted them to be (see discussion in MacKinnon 1987, p. 59). Women have the moral right to push back on this, to define themselves. ‘Woman: adult human female’ is the definition that makes the most sense to gender-critical women, and gives them what they want for feminist politics, namely a coherent class with a demonstrable history of oppression. There should be a high bar on anyone’s attempting to override this self-definition in their own interests. You cannot pretend to respect a woman’s right to self-define while simultaneously telling her which definitions are acceptable.}}

:I suggest that we select {{tq|‘Woman: adult human female’ is the definition that makes the most sense to gender-critical women, and gives them what they want for feminist politics, namely a coherent class with a demonstrable history of oppression.}} and add this to the article as representative of the view of Lawford-Smith on this expression. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

::Is there any research done on women who self-identify as gender-critical to figure out what definition they prefer? If not, the claim is rather weak. I think that "person X believes Y" is stronger. What do you think? Polygnotus (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

::This is fine, I suppose. I'm not sure how instructive it is to quote a TERF saying the phrase is innocuous and feminist given that our other sources already illustrate that (1) yes, they do say that, and (2) no it isn't. I would prefer a selection that engages with the phrase less obliquely. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 01:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I am suggesting that we should say in our article:{{tq|Holly Lawford-Smith said of the expression:” ‘Woman: adult human female’ is the definition that makes the most sense to gender-critical women, and gives them what they want for feminist politics, namely a coherent class with a demonstrable history of oppression.”}}

:::Do we have agreement to add this to the article? Sweet6970 (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I'd like someone else to weigh in as I'm still on the fence. The more I learn about this writer, the less I want to platform her. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 23:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::asked here by Polygnotus :) I think the proposed text might make sense somewhere if it were pushing back against something, but there doesn't seem to be any kind of reception/discourse section? What I'd do is add some kind of non-quote summary of her view of usage to the Usage section, and probably leave it there. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::I agree that the most appropriate place for adding something about Lawford-Smith’s view would be in the Usage section. However, I would very much prefer to have an actual quote, because in my experience, trying to summarise/edit quotations on contentious topics is liable to lead to skewing the ‘summary’ towards one pov or another. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::::What's the argument for inclusion here? LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::The argument for inclusion is that we should include all relevant points of view, per WP:NPOV {{tq|The neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.}}. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm not 100% convinced on sufficient due weight but this article is bare bones at the moment so I'm not wholly opposed either. LunaHasArrived (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::The argument is that we don't only include viewpoints that you personally like.2A02:810D:BCBF:FD88:312E:A695:75B8:B2CA (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Please Wikipedia:Assume good faith LunaHasArrived (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

There doesn’t seem to be any actual opposition to my suggestion for adding the quote to the article, and in the absence of any other suggestions, I intend to add it. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

:Still leaning against it. There is more value in a quote which discusses the dogwhistle (informative), instead of invoking it (obscurative).

:It's transparent to all involved that {{xt|coherent class with a demonstrable history of oppression}} is bullshit—the movement has zip to do with oppression of "females" and everything to do with bullying transgender people. It's 2025 and the sky is very blue. Terves rally around the phrase because it's the polite and credible-sounding version of YWNBAW. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 13:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{yo|RoxySaunders}} You are an experienced editor, and you must be aware of WP:NPOV, which says:”{{tq| All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.}}" At the moment we don’t represent the views of g-c feminists on this subject. How about including quotes regarding both the supposed ‘dog whistle’, and the comment referring to a ‘coherent class’? Sweet6970 (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

:::That is WP:FALSEBALANCE. We don't include views simply because they exist, but based on their coverage and treatment in secondary sources. I don't think there's much evidence that this quote in particular is significant. --Aquillion (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{yo|RoxySaunders}} Please may I have an answer to my question. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Refuses to answer. I say insert the content. 2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:B84D:9B95:2103:D9E0 (talk) 06:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:I agree that this is something that would be better added in rebuttal to a claim. Saying uncritically that it’s because adult human female is a class with a demonstrable history of oppression is just plain outdated, for the reason that how do you isolate womanhood alone as the specific type of oppression? After all, a white woman in the EU and a middle eastern woman in Saudi Arabia have extremely different histories of oppression. Many modern scholars argue that transmisogyny is an intersection of transphobia and normal misogyny, thus categorizing trans women as women under this definition. Simply put, this definition ignores intersectionality and global feminism entirely Snokalok (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{yo|Snokalok}} Your views on this subject are irrelevant to editing Wikipedia. The relevant policy is WP:NPOV, which says: {{tq|All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.}} We currently do not represent the views of those who hold that the correct definition of ‘woman’ is ‘adult human female’. So the extract from Holly Lawford-Smith should be added to this article, to make it compliant with Wikipedia policy.

::Another relevant policy is WP:NOTFORUM. Please do not make comments that are irrelevant to editing, and are likely to stir up irrelevant discussion and acrimony. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Are there any more comments on this? Sweet6970 (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

This text: {{tq|In 2022, a man from California was arrested for allegedly threatening to bomb Merriam-Webster's offices and kill its employees.}} is about allegations from 2022. This is too indefinite for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Unless there has since been some definite report about this alleged incident, it should be deleted. WP:NOTNEWS Sweet6970 (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Sweet6970}} Currently the article uses [https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-arrested-allegedly-threatening-merriam-webster-definition-female/story?id=84253350 ABC News] but there is also:

:*https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/22/us/merriam-webster-threats-lgbtq.html

:*https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/09/16/merriam-webster-lgbtq-threat/

:*https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-threatened-merriam-webster-gender-inclusive-definitions-was-senten-rcna79838

:*https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-vowed-bomb-merriam-webster-gender-inclusive-entries-pleads-guilty-rcna48155

:*https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/04/23/feds-man-threatened-merriam-webster-bombing/7423063001/

:*https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-04-22/orange-county-man-anti-lgbtq-threats-merriam-webster

:*https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/california-man-arrested-and-charged-making-threats-against-lgbtq-community

:*https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/california-man-sentenced-threatening-merriam-webster-anti-lgbtq-violence

:Google has many more sources. I am now on a list because I googled {{tq|bomb Merriam-Webster's office}}. That person got one year and one day in prison and three years of supervised release.

:Polygnotus (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for finding these. Given that he plead guilty and was sentenced, {{xt|allleged}} is incorrect. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 00:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Good point, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adult_human_female&diff=1275244331&oldid=1275211147 removed] it. Polygnotus (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

::{{yo|Polygnotus}} Thanks for this. I’ll use the Massachusetts Attorney’s Office reference, which shows the conviction. If you suddenly stop editing, we’ll know why…….. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Perfect, thank you! Polygnotus (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

{{yo|MetalBreaksAndBends}} What is the justification for referring to the question ‘What is a woman? as {{tq|rhetorical}}? Sweet6970 (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:Definitionally, a rhetorical question is {{!xt|an adult female question}} a question posed for dramatic or persuasive effect instead of soliciting information. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 23:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::Real Gender p. 20 (at least in the Kindle Edition) has the following quote from a thinkpiece by Laura Halls which I can no longer find: {{xt|Recently with the rise of transphobia across the US in particular, one of the questions transphobes have levelled towards supporters of trans rights is what is a woman? This is obviously little more than an attempt to back people into a corner where reactionaries can give their stock reply of 'adult human female' in an attempt to look like the obvious victor.}} –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 00:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::That does not mean it's a rhetorical question at all 2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:B84D:9B95:2103:D9E0 (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::So it should be removed 2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:2D7F:E65B:D0BA:1E4D (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::There’s only one source saying it is a rhetorical question – this is not enough to say it in wikivoice. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Why wouldn't it be?_rh Is the implication that terves are genuinely curious?_rh –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 18:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::If one says that a trans woman is a woman, then it is necessary to define the word ‘woman’, because otherwise, the statement is meaningless. The question ‘What is a woman?’ is the colloquial way of saying: ‘What is your definition of the word “woman”?’. So it is not, in principle, a rhetorical question, but a genuine one – though it may be used rhetorically to someone who has been shown not to have an answer.

:::::But the main point here is that we should not say something in wikivoice unless most RS say it – and we only have one source. And the extract you have given has a really partisan flavour – it doesn’t read as if it would be a suitable source for anything factual. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC) amended Sweet6970 (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::It personally struck me as uncontroversial (WP:SKYISBLUE and WP:DISCRETION) that the question (as used e.g., by Matt Walsh and Marsha Blackburn) is only posed for the purpose of reinforcing the simplistic three-word answer. It is not an information-gathering question, as anti-trans activists already have their own answer. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 16:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::As far as I can see, everything to do with ‘Adult human female’/’What is a woman’ is controversial. And when there is only one source for ‘rhetorical’, this word should be deleted. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I personally remember the UK 2019 general election, and politicians repeatedly being asked this in interviews. For example, [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50711195 Jo Swinson was asked this on air], and replied: {{tq | she believed people could "understand their own identity" and it was right, in terms of the law, "for them" to define it.}}.

:::::::That's a legitimate answer to a legitimate question. That is how it is and has been used, by campaigners and advocates and interviewers, for years - with the intent to put a politician or other public figure on the spot, and see how they answer, and hopefully generate some controversy or other (in either direction) for headlines or clicks or eyeballs or whatever. Either they will say "adult human female" or they will say something else, or they will try to avoid answering, or attack the question itself, and no matter which way that goes the answer ends up with them picking a side on a highly contentious issue.

:::::::That is not even remotely what a "rhetorical question" is. It is really a "loaded question", which is a rhetorical tool, but is the exact opposite of a "rhetorical question. Void if removed (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::This is to "rhetorical" as Alanis Morisette is to "irony". Void if removed (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1749654071}}

{{rfc|soc|rfcid=63B15FF}}

Should it say "question" or "rhetorical question"?2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:BC2F:1A76:72ED:55F6 (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Rhetorical Snokalok (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:"Question" because no source calls it a "rhetorical question"2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:BC2F:1A76:72ED:55F6 (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Trans UK barrister Robin White: {{xt|To deny the complexity is to deny trans people’s legitimacy, even very existence. And that denial is often the point of asking the rhetorical question.}}https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/what-is-a-woman-robin-moira-white-transgender-rights/. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 15:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That's opinion which would need attribution - and is also part of a point/counterpoint series, with Maya Forstater's answer [https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/what-is-a-woman-maya-forstater-transgender-rights/ here]. Robin White argues it is a {{tqq | dog whistle}}, while Maya Forstater contends it is a serious question that HR professionals need to be able to answer in order to comply with the Equality Act. Picking just one of those sources to advance either of those perspectives as "true" in wikivoice would be wrong. Void if removed (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::It is obviously a dog whistle. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 17:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes per my citation in the above section. Multiple sources describe it (and specifically its use in the Ketanji Brown Jackson Supreme Court nomination as a "gotcha" or loaded question, including [https://newenglrev.com/2024/02/27/grandstanding-or-gotcha-asking-ketanji-brown-jackson-can-you-provide-a-definition-for-the-word-woman/ New England Law Review]. Also somewhat notable is the [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/us/politics/ketanji-brown-jackson-woman-definition.html The New York Times], which described it as {{xt|part of a diatribe against transgender rights.}} –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 15:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::FYI I have notified WT:LGBTQ of this RfC. For context, the sentence being discussed is {{xt|The phrase is often accompanied by other anti-trans rhetoric, sometimes as an answer to the rhetorical question "What is a woman?".}}, and the question is whether "rhetorical question" is appropriate here. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 15:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::A loaded question is not a rhetorical question. It is the opposite. Void if removed (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Should the article say {{xt|...the question "What is a woman", frequently described as a loaded question or "gotcha"}}?https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/republicans-define-woman-rcna23392https://www.foxnews.com/media/the-view-joy-behar-ketanji-brown-jackson-define-woman-gotcha-questionhttps://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/republicans-define-woman-rcna23392https://www.thewrap.com/jon-stewart-bible-republican-definition-of-woman-video/https://translucent.org.uk/what-is-a-woman-the-gotcha-question/https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/comment-gotcha-question-about-defining-woman-backfires/https://theweek.com/feature/briefing/1015107/what-is-a-woman-conservative-talking-point-explainedhttps://gen.medium.com/define-woman-24de33ca3ed7 –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 15:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC) –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 15:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::That's more arguable but those sources aren't all that great (mostly a mix of self-published, blogs, opinion, statements that require attribution, and fox news). Void if removed (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The book we're currently citing says "define woman" (as used in the Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirmation hearings) is {{xt|popularly considered a 'gotcha' challenge}}. We should probably mention the hearing, as it was then the most notable and widely reported use of The Woman Question (as the authors call it) beyond Matt Walsh. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 17:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::That's undue for an article on the phrase "adult human female". It's appopriate for an article "What is a woman" but there's nothing abult "adult human female" in the covereage. Golikom (talk) 09:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The two are closely intertwined, as they are both anti-trans rhetoric which involve defining woman, and Real Gender notes that together they form a call-and-response. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 12:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Question, because words do have meaning, and whether you like the question or not, or the answer or not, it is not a "rhetorical question". A loaded question, sure. A rhetorical device, absolutely. A rhetorical question, no. Void if removed (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Question (i.e. not ‘rhetorical’) as per my previous comments. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{sbb}} - This is not the article on woman. This is the article about a slogan. As such, it's not trying to answer the question "what is a woman" but rather describing the use of that question in relation to the slogan -- as a rhetorical strategy. Unfortunately, we have only one cited source, and I can't access it to make sure it actually verifies the content, hence no boldtext !vote from me. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :From Real Gender on p. 11: {{tqb|What is a woman? We're at peak Trans Panic and that question has become a mainstream media litmus test for supposed 'wokeness' (i.e. being pro-trans). The 'common sense' answer is something rooted in biology; preferably along the lines of 'adult human female. It's a definition that is obviously intended to exclude trans women from the definition of womanhood. It's also a definition feminism has been trying to move away from for decades.
  –Kaylin Hamilton}}
• :On p. 20 {{tqb|Recently with the rise of transphobia across the US in particular, one of the questions transphobes have levelled towards supporters of trans rights is what is a woman? This is obviously little more than an attempt to back people into a corner where reactionaries can give their stock reply of 'adult human female' in an attempt to look like the obvious victor.
  –Laura Halls}}
• :p. 22: {{tqb|At her US Supreme Court confirmation hearing on 22 March 2022, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was asked a question by Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn that is popularly considered a 'gotcha' challenge: 'Can you provide a definition for the word "woman"?'}}
• :I feel {{xt|gotcha question}} may be the most source-based term. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 17:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::The [https://kaylinhamilton.substack.com/p/simone-de-beauvoir-on-the-question-of-what-is-a-woman-6000b929bd30?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web article by Hamilton] (self-published, but she is a PhD sociologist) being cited also says: {{tqb|When asked by these institutions, the question ‘what is a woman’ is almost rhetorical; the implied ‘obvious’ or ‘common sense’ answer is that a woman is her biology; the female body as defined by ‘Western’ patriarchal values and norms about sex and gender.}} –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 18:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Clearly a rhetorical question, not once has anyone actually cared about the answer when they ask this question, they just use it to political point score. LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:'Question. Its always described as a question in the sources, regardless of whether they add an adjective or not. Golikom (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Clearly it is a rhetorical question and I feel that we would not be arguing about this if this were almost any other topic. That said, we do need to source it properly. If the existing source is insufficient to support it, and additional support can not be found, then "gotcha question" would be a perfectly reasonable alternative based on the quotes above. I'm against just saying "question" because that is misleading. A genuine question is a query intended to elicit an answer that provides new information unknown to the enquirer. This is not that. This is the opposite of that. It is used as a thought-terminating cliché intended to disrupt or prevent an exchange of information rather than to facilitate it. Maybe we can just go with "gotcha question" and avoid arguing about this endlessly? Or would that spoil the fun?{{wink}} --DanielRigal (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:* Rhetorical per Roxy's sources, obv it's not used as a philosophical question. WP:SPADE applies. This RfC's very messy

:Kowal2701 (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Rhetorical question is a reasonable summary of the sources presented above. See also {{cite journal|first1=Maureen|last1=Kosse|title=Referentialism and Discursive Parallels between US “Alt-Right” and “Gender-Critical” Conspiracism|url=https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5d38w40h|journal=Journal of Right-Wing Studies|date=18 January 2025|volume=2|issue=2|doi=10.5070/RW3.1608|quote=The rhetorical simplicity of the question is reflected in an oft-memed tweet posted by a TERF-aligned Twitter account in October 2021... ... By attempting to claim ownership of words like man or woman, fully insisting that these expressions only have one meaning (“biological sex”), gender-critical and far-right collaborators rhetorically preclude transness from any sort of real instantiation}} --Aquillion (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Both? It can be both a non-rhetorical question and a rhetorical question. If this is regarding the sentence {{red|...answer to the rhetorical question "what is a woman?"}}, it could be reworded to something along the lines of: {{green|sometimes given as the answer to the (often rhetorical) question "what is a woman?"}}. Some1 (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

Genuine question but are people voting in favour of this simply unaware what a "Rhetorical question" is? It is not simply a question used as part of rhetoric, or that has some sort of rhetorical purpose, or that is used to score political points. A "rhetorical question" is one which is not intended to be answered, or which the speaker answers themselves. It is not a question that puts the person being asked on the spot (which is a gotcha, or pointed question), or which the asker will accept only one answer to, or one which contains assumptions that force the person being asked to take a position they don't want to (ie a loaded question). A rhetorical question is something like a speaker saying "why are we here today?" during a speech where everyone has come to hear the speaker, and the expectation is not for random members of the audience to shout out their motivations.

An interviewer asking a subject "what is a woman?" is not a rhetorical question - because getting an answer is the intent, usually for political purposes. If the aim is to put the subject on the spot and force them to either say or avoid saying "adult human female" then it isn't rhetorical, it is loaded, or pointed, or a gotcha. Calling that a rhetorical question is like using "literally" to mean "figuratively" and just incorrect use of English, sourced or not. Void if removed (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:In the very narrow use case you proposed you are right. When used by political activists and social media users, it very much can be used as a rhetorical question as nobody is expected to give an answer.

:However we could amend the text in the article to say that Adult Human Female is the assumed answer to the rhetorical question of "what is a women?", which could be an improvement.

:LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Activists use it as a gotcha, as sources can attest. They know what answer they want. They know the person being asked either will or won't give the desired answer. And obtaining the answer (or non-answer) for political ends is the whole point. That's not even remotely a "rhetorical question". They want to make the person answering show which "side" they are on. Pick absolutely any hot button issue and it is exactly the same.

::Trying to make out like it is a "rhetorical question" is a straight-up misuse of English. A question cannot be both a rhetorical question and a gotcha - these are incompatible concepts. Void if removed (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Sorry, activists when speaking to a crowd actually want to know what their crowd think? No they're using it as a rhetorical question. However this phrase can be used in lots of ways (some of which can be a rhetorical question as demonstrated) so a better "catch all" may be needed, however simply "question" does not accurately reflect the reality that this phrase quite often isn't used to get any answer at all.

:::LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I agree that "question" is absolutely no good. It would be actively misleading the readers to just say "question". Even so, I don't think that there is any point in trying to argue about whether this is a rhetorical question here. Very obviously it is, but very obviously we have to be able to source it validly or the door is open to indefinite argumentation and that just grinds progress to a halt. I think the better term is "gotcha question". We have good sources for that and it covers what we need to convey equally well. Let's use that. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::It's far more widely described just as a question. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cglx1zg93j0o https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/04/britain-rules-woman-supreme-court/682511/. https://thecatholicherald.com/what-is-a-woman-an-easy-question-to-answer-but-not-today/https://www.irishstar.com/news/us-news/trumps-rambling-what-woman-answer-34954553 https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/08/28/australia-julia-gillard-trans-question/( this one does reference a "gotcha parlour game" in a quote) https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/matt-walsh/ etc etc

:::::Calling a "gotcha question" in wikivoice is entirely undue and not NPOV. It's also called "contentious" https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c07ev1v7r4po "inane "https://thecritic.co.uk/donald-trump-doesnt-know-what-a-woman-is-either/ and manhy other things - all dependent on POV, and we should not be doing so here. Golikom (talk) 06:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::It cannot be both a {{tqq | rhetorical question}} and a {{tqq|gotcha question}}. These are polar opposite concepts, so I can't understand how you can say it is {{tqq|obviously}} the former but also the latter, and that the latter conveys the same meaning {{tqq | equally well}}. I know WP:GENSEX is rife with intractable differences of opinion but this is a very strange one indeed to me. Void if removed (talk) 08:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The "Use by second Trump administration" section is not very strong. The only connection to "adult human female" is a passing mention in the Attitude source, and it's unclear whether it's quoting anyone. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think EO 14168 using {{xt|adult and juvenile human females}} is worth mentioning on the article since it evokes the phrase right down to the reversal of human and female. The rest is just context for that which could in theory be trimmed since most of it is covered by the See Also. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 18:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)