Category talk:WikiProject Women scientists articles

Biography: Science and Academia Category‑class

	Biography portal This category is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Category	This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This category is supported by the science and academia work group.

Women scientists Category‑class

	This category is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
Category	This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Untitled[edit]

Hi! This is largely a copy of a discussion I wanted to start on the list of "Women Biologists", but I think it applies here, too.

There are a few problems with all "women xyz" categories. The first is that there is a lacking corresponding "men xyz" set of categories in many cases. While I care about fairness and even just symmetry for symmetry's sake in information/encyclopedia organization, that is not my primary motive for making that statement.

Although it is counter-intuitive, I mean it as a feminist statement. When women are cordoned off and men are left in the "regular" categories, it makes male the default. Certainly give additional focus to the underrepresented by having a more in-depth article covering the history of our exclusion and struggle, but also treat the over-represented as just as much a subcategory, just as much a mere part of the whole, as us. Because they are. It's like how it would be weird if there were all sorts of nationality categories for scientist, but none for "regular" "citizen born" Americans. What would be the message of that? Who would be seen as default? As you might tell by my quotes there, I think citizen birth is not at all a determining factor on who is a "regular American", but it is a cultural idea that is out there and would be upheld by such a category being "left unsaid". Unspoken because it doesn't have to be, not because it is neglected.

So there should be "Women Scientist" and "Men Scientist" lists, and perhaps a duplication of everyone in the main "Scientist" list. I really miss being able to see all those in one place, and I can't figure out where it is anymore.

My other concern is the category is called "women scientists" on Wikipedia currently. Meanwhile, this one and many other places on wikipedia refer to categories of men as "male scientists" or "male" this or that, because male is the adjective which applies to men just as female is the adjective which applies to women. If we are going to change that, it should be a change for both. They shouldn't be different.

Either it's "men scientists" and replacement of all "male" in categories and in-text language about human males with "men" and "man" in all the same cases you replace "female" with "women" or "woman", or somebody who knows how changes "woman scientists" to "female scientists".

Pick a standard that matches both and stick to it. For readability, for ease of guessing what the category will be called while searching or linking, and for fairness's sake. If we are now avoiding "female" as a word, we must too avoid "male". Meanwhile, if we recognize there are indeed female and male humans that those are also relevant categorizes, we can leave them.

If we wish to organize around some nebulous idea of "woman identity" or "man identity", that will be difficult, as these vary by culture, time, and individual experience. Are they even really usable categories at all? What do all the man identity have in common, without resorting to gender roles (sex based stereotypes and rules) or statements of "feeling" or faith in some incommunicable internal identity akin to a soul? I do not have the answers to all these questions. I appreciate discussion on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bytheroot (talk • contribs) 03:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]