This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
"Gender development" and the question of whether gender is a "choice" or not
Do not feed.
@When the Wind Blows: Wikipedia only reports information from reliable sources, and does not follow any viewpoints per WP:NPOV.
Old research is biased. Good research takes time to be published. Most journal editors and researchers are not LGBTQ+, can never imagine what it's like to be LGBTQ+, and many of them discriminate against LGBTQ+ people, with the motive of concealing, malforming, compromising or diminishing good research about LGBTQ+ traits, in order to make LGBTQ+ people invisible and to erase them from society.
A research paper discusses why "social construction" of gender is entirely incidental, incoherent, and has loopholes.
While both are not binary, and both are biological, sex and gender are different, because sex is determined by genes like SRY and WNT4, while gender is a biological trait resulting from complex interplay between hormones and genetic factors. — CrafterNova[ TALK ][ CONT ] 07:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
We at Wikipedia follow a left-wing doctrine. Please adjust your content accordingly. When the Wind Blows (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not follow any such "viewpoint-leaning" policy, rather it follows a neutral policy based on neutrality. — CrafterNova[ TALK ][ CONT ] 08:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
What has any of this got to do with improving the David Reimer article? WP:NOTFORUM. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
See the edsum of this edit [1]. But yes, the point is that any revert of an edit should explain what is wrong with the content of the edit, and not be based on a (mis)understanding of Wikipedia's philosophy. I couldn't see anything wrong with that edit. @When the Wind Blows, please focus on the content in this discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Looks @When the Wind Blows is engaging in trolling. "We at Wikipedia follow a left-wing doctrine. Please adjust your content accordingly" is obvious trolling. Their edit summaries are also trolls: e.g. here and here. I guess this could constitue WP:DISRUPTIVE editing if they persist. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Money continued to supervise and report on the twins' "gender development" as the "John/Joan case" until the twins were 13 years old.
The phrase "gender development" is ambiguous, and is solely based on Money's theories which are not widely accepted by current scientific consensus.
Gender does not develop after birth, rather it develops before birth, is permanently fixed at birth, and cannot be changed after that.
On the other hand, sex can be changed by sex reassignment surgery, which aims to affirm gender of individuals whose sex does not match the gender they were born with.[1]
This article needs to consistently differentiate between sex and gender, in order to be WP:CONSISTENT with the article sex-gender distinction.
On a side note, I do agree that David Reiner was never transgender, rather he was a boy who born male and then forced to undergo sex reassignment surgery just because of unreliable medical advice regarding phimosis, failed circumcision and unnecessary electrocauterization which brutally damaged his penis. Reimer made the right decision by making his story public, in order to discourage such unnecessary medical practices. — CrafterNova[ TALK ][ CONT ] 08:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I am not sure what to do with "gender development" in that sentence. The point is that gender development refers here to his theory, which the case ultimately disproved. As such, it is the right term, but placing it in quotes looks like scare quoting. It may need to be recast slightly to make it clear. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, either "gender development" should be in quotation marks, or it should be recast slightly to make it clear, just as you said.
I agree with both the actions, but if it needs to be made clear to readers, I would say, the text can be reworded to make it clear. — CrafterNova[ TALK ][ CONT ] 09:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
