Talk:Man

Bold edits

I've made some bold edits: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], and [11].

If anyone disagrees with anything, we can discuss it here. Content can be re-instated if nessecary. I'm just trying to improve this article in general because a vital article like this should be better. Clovermoss (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I reinstated the tag from the first edit after I went here and noticed the talk page discussion about it above. Clovermoss (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

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 [12] and [13] 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[14] 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)

• • • • • Shall I start work on the cis man WP:POVFORK while you gather up and summarize those famous high quality reliable sources™? 😂  Tewdar  15:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
          • Men's studies points to some decent content, as does (perhaps ironically) Sex differences in humans (Psychology and Sociology subsections). Newimpartial (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
            • Link a few that you think are good, and I'll try and take a look once I've finished playing old video games.  Tewdar  17:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
          • @Tewdar that was very cringe EvergreenFir (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
            • Ah come on! I thought it was funny, anyway...  Tewdar  09:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

          There are lots of RSs based on the intersectional or similar theories, so the articles as Cisgender man, White cisgender man, Black cisgender man, White cisgender heterosexual man, White cisgender heterosexual gender-conforming man, White cisgender heterosexual gender-nonconforming man, Black cisgender heterosexual gender-nonconforming man etc. are quite possible in the future. Just wait more RSs about differences between men's groups. In fact, their amount grows. It's really possible because there are a big difference between just man and cisgender gender-nonconforming man although in gender binary average people say man and mean cisgender heterosexual gender-conforming man. Reprarina (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Man and Person in context of One man, one vote and One person, one vote

In Talk:One man, one vote there is no consensus if One man, one vote and One person, one vote have the same meaning. In this context does Man and Person mean the same thing? What is the consensus? HudecEmil (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2022

I would like to give a much more valid definition Lazykube (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

What is a man?

I made a bold edit, but I was referred to the talk page, because it is a very bold edit.

Here is what I think the lead should say:

A man is an adult human who identifies and/or is recognized as male based on their gender identity or biological sex characteristics.

This makes it clear that there are multiple factors in what makes a man, rather than just "male", which redirects to the page for biological male sex on wikipedia. Born25121642 (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Male includes the definition meaning gender. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Understood. Born25121642 (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Update: I am trying out a new bold edit:

"A man is an adult human who has primary and/or secondary male sex characteristics."

I believe the above language clarifies what we mean by "male", given that the term can refer to gender or sex aspects. Born25121642 (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Inviting User:Endwise to comment in this discussion Born25121642 (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

This article should cohere with woman. There has been much more discussion about it there and it is a page that is much more actively watched than this one, so I suggest you take it up at Talk:Woman. Endwise (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

As a man myself, I feel much more comfortable editing Man. Afterwards, if Man and Woman do not cohere, maybe we can try to get Woman to cohere.

Pinging some of the people who recently commented on Woman to invite them to this discussion.

User:Crossroads

User:RoxySaunders

User:WhatamIdoing Born25121642 (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I think in all of these articles, we need to first decide what the subject is, and then figure out what to say about it. The two main candidates are:

• All the different things that get called (wo)man
• Any single one of those things

Note that these are mutually exclusive options. You can either write an article that covers identity+expression+biology+role+etc. or you can write an article that covers one of these things. Utterly ignore the current title for a moment. After all, the title can be changed if necessary. (See Wikipedia:Article titles and scopes for some conceptual explanation.) Then ask yourself:

• Do you want this article, with its existing history, to be the article about people with biologically male bodies?
• Do you want it to be the article about people with masculine gender identities?
• Do you want it to be the article about people whom society treats like men regardless of less visible but relevant facts or their own views on the matter?
• Do you want it to be the article about people who have either biologically male bodies or masculine gender identities?
• Do you want it to be the article about people who have biologically male bodies and masculine gender identities?
• Do you want it to be an article about all of these things, mixed together?

All of these are perfectly valid subjects for Wikipedia articles. Today's question isn't whether to have such articles, or what such an article should be called; the only question is which subject you want to appear as the next revision of this article's history.

Let me give an example, by taking the first question: Imagine that we decide that this article should be about people with biologically male bodies. This article could be called "Man", but it could also be called something like "Biologically male adult" (perhaps with Man and Men redirecting there per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). If that it is the chosen subject for this article – and it is the subject, and not the title that I'm emphasizing – then the article would say something like "A man is an adult human with a biologically male body. Biological sex is determined by internal anatomy, external anatomy, hormones, chromosomes, genes, and gamete production. Biological males produce smaller gametes than biological females; in the case of humans, these are called sperm. A person who is not a biological male might be a biological female or an intersex person. A man usually has a masculine gender identity, but may have any gender identity. A man usually has a masculine gender role, but may have any gender identity."

But now let's imagine that we decide that this article should be about all the things that are called men. In that case, the article would say something like "A man is an adult human who identifies as a man or who is assumed by others to be a man. This could be due to having a biologically male body as determined by internal anatomy, external anatomy, hormones, chromosomes, genes, and gamete production, but it could also be due to self-identification as having a masculine gender identity, by filling a masculine gender role is society, by dressing or behaving as a man. While many men have male bodies, masculine gender identities, masculine gender expressions, and masculine social roles, for others, the case is mixed. For example, a person can be a man in terms of gender expression but not be a man in terms of social role. Biologically, males contrast with females and intersex people; socially, masculine gender identities contrast with feminine and non-binary gender identities."

Both of these (and all the other options) are perfectly valid articles. The question is not "Which one is the One True™ Man?" The question is not even "Which one deserves to have the article title Man?" The question at hand is "Which subject are we going to start writing about today?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Got it. A lot of people think of a man as in any or multiple of those categories. So for the sake of clarity, I propose this new lede:

A man is an adult human of the male gender or male sex. Born25121642 (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Or simply:

A man is an adult human of the male gender or sex.

(With the same wikilinks) Born25121642 (talk) 07:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Sounds WP:UNDUE. Citation needed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The article for "Male" says it can refer to gender or sex. Since a lot of people commonly use "male" for either gender or sex, we should mention that. Many people, including me, read "male" as "male sex" and may not consider gender aspects. Born25121642 (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps a footnote would be the proper solution here. Just something simple like "Male may refer to sex or gender." CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this is the most reasonable solution. Either a footnote on Male, or a footnote on "adult male human" saying something to the effect of, "There are also Trans men and intersex men who do not fit typical notions of male sex expression."

Is this reasonable in terms of WP:DUE? Theheezy (talk) 13:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It is indeed WP:UNDUE, and it's also completely out of line with WP:Reliable sources to fork the topic into different definitions, or to add WP:OR to the definition. The article is about men, a unified topic in reliable sources and - while not all men are the same - biological and social characteristics are both relevant. This matter has been discussed previously and there is no need to change it. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Please see CaptainEek's comment above. Born25121642 (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I did. I believe it is undue and OR in this immediate context. I see no reason that the wikilink or the current definition - that is used by numerous reliable sources - is insufficient. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

As much as I agree with you, I'm trying to think of creative solutions to the long running issue here. Like, our readers keep complaining, so I think there is something we could be doing to make their education easier? I don't think any of our pages are wrong here. They just require some link following, and I'm not sure a lot of readers realize that. I.e., a man is an adult male human. If you go read male, you see that male can refer to sex or gender. But that distinction is perhaps not obvious to the casual reader, who may not click through to the male page. I'm thinking that if we point to a footnote, that might slow the flood of readers who are confused (with a reference obviously, we can just nab from the male page: Palazzani, Laura; Bailes, Victoria; Fella, Marina (2012). Gender in Philosophy and Law. SpringerBriefs in law. Dordrecht : Springer. p. v. ISBN 9789400749917. 'gender' means human gender, male/female gender (eBook)). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so everyone who's talking about UNDUE has completely missed the point of what I said. Let me try it more directly: It is actually impossible to decide whether something is UNDUE unless and until you figure out what the subject of the article is.

There are multiple valid subjects that could be on this page. Each of those valid subjects could be best served by a different title. Each of those valid subjects could be best served by a different first sentence. But don't bother saying that this or that is UNDUE until we have a shared understanding of what the subject of the article is.

@Born25121642 expresses a preference for the subject of this article being the one that I called "all of these things, mixed together". If that is the agreed-upon subject, then mentioning "all of these things, mixed together" can't be UNDUE.

Your job – @CaptainEek, @Crossroads, @Kolya Butternut – is to now tell Born25121642 what you believe the proper subject of this article is. For example, you might say something that sounds like "Well, I can see why someone might think that this article should cover 'all of these things, mixed together', and of course modern understandings of manhood are a valid subject for an article on Wikipedia, but I personally think that this particular article ought to be about 'people with biologically male bodies and masculine gender identities' because _____."

After we have figured out which subject is the wanted subject for this page, then we can sort out what to say about that subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Huh. This article is about adult male humans. The subject is not unclear. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Kolya, but I'll add that I see this article as a top level summary. There are then, per SUMMARYSTYLE, lots of sub articles about certain aspects or categories of men such as Gay men and Trans men. They get short mentions in this article, which are explored at length elsewhere. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad that you agree with each other. Now, for the rest of us, can you spell out what "adult male human" means to you? Does that mean "post-pubescent male-bodied people"? Is a trans woman "a man" for the purposes of this article? Is a trans man?

The failure to be absolutely clear – clear to the meanest of intelligence; clear to the most motivated POV pusher – on what exactly "adult male human" includes and excludes, is the fundamental source of problems here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't remember anyone before complaining the topic we are covering wasn't clear. And generally, the people trying to force the article into a more restrictive definitional mold have been the ones pushing a POV. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

"Adult male human" can mean different things, but that's as precise as we can get for a simple summary. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

If it can mean different things, and that the subject of this article is therefore different things, then you agree with Born25121642 that "all of these things, mixed together".

And in that case, a first sentence that names "all of these things, mixed together" is not UNDUE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

So, Man is perhaps as clearly worded as it can be. It may benefit both Man and Male if Male has a section for definitions of "Male" for humans. Born25121642 (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Male does though? Under #usage? And its also in the lead? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The first paragraph can be read (and probably will be read) as intending to communicate that all men are biological males. It is true that "the word male can also be used to refer to gender," but it is also true that the word male is frequently used to specifically identify biological sex.

Put another way, if this article is meant to be about "all of these things, mixed together", then readers should know that there is more to this particular article's subject than being biological male before the end of the first paragraph, and preferably before the end of the first sentence.  If you want this article to be about "all of these things, mixed together", then we should not mislead the readers by making the first paragraph indicate that the subject of this article is adequately described in terms of biology, while saying over here on the talk page that the subject of this article equally includes AFABs and intersex people with a masculine gender identity, and other non-biological males.  Either this article is meant to include trans men or it isn't; if it is, then the first paragraph needs to say something about non-biological ways of being a man.

Perhaps specific questions would help: Is Elliot Page an example of the intended subject of this article? Is Caitlyn Jenner? Are they both (one being within the scope of this article due to gender identity, and the other being within the scope of this article due to biology)? Are neither of them (one due to not having the biology intended for this article's scope and the other due to not having the gender identity intended for this article's scope)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The construct of "all of these things, mixed together" appears to be OR. Also gender roles and trans men are already specifically mentioned in the lead. I don't see any reason to assume people aren't reading past the first paragraph. And that's their problem if so. The definition used in RS is good and sufficient. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

"All the things that are called ____" is a WP:SETINDEX, which has never been considered "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" (aka OR). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Biology can certainly be broken down into multiple factors, including sex organs, hormones, secondary sex characteristics, and more.

In all cases, is a man someone who has primary and/or secondary sex characteristics associated/derived from the male chromosomal sex? This would cover everyone.

But it looks like this line of questioning is out of the scope of wikipedia, and would constitute original research in the context of Man. Born25121642 (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Born, "derived from the male chromosomal sex" would exclude all trans men, all chromosomal females whom society assigns to a masculine gender role, and chromosomal males whose Y chromosome is non-functional. It would include all trans women and many intersexed chromosomal males. Is that what your goal? (NB that at this point, I don't care what the result is. I just want a clear, specific, durable result.)

Wikipedia editors alone can decide what the scope of an article is. It is not original research to say "I'm going to write an article about cars – the ones with four wheels, legal for driving on the public roadways, primarily used for passenger transportation, and without an open bed in the back, so my article excludes motorcycles, panel trucks, and the Chevrolet El Camino, but I need help finding sources that will tell me whether minivans and SUVs are primarily used for passengers these days." That isn't a case of making stuff up that can't be found in reliable sources; that's a case of you deciding what you are WP:VOLUNTEERing to do. (What you choose to name the resulting article could be OR (the vehicle class I give as an example might be better titled "passenger vehicle" than "The Only True™ Kind of Car"), and you might get a little ways into it and discover that the El Camino needs to be included after all, but merely deciding that you want to write an article about a particular thing is never OR. See also Ketogenic diet and Ketogenic diet (fad diet): both diets burn fat as the primary source of food energy, but there's no OR in deciding that you want to write about a century-old medical intervention for kids at risk of dying from epilepsy vs about a recently popular weight loss program for adults. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that "Wikipedia editors alone can decide what the scope of an article is"; if someone created an article on people with XY chromosomes and red hair, it would be deleted as WP:OR and other reasons. We are in fact obligated to classify and categorize reality the way reliable sources do. An article on "biologically male human", which you mention below as a thought experiment (?), would meet the same fate, not to mention that it is often called transphobic to outright call trans women "biologically male" (and to be fair, if they are taking hormones, or even given the fact that gender identity seems to have at least in part a biological basis, it would not be a useful topic). Crossroads ^-talk- 18:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that it would be making stuff up to split the List of redheads into subpages according to whatever categories reliable sources would support? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Understood.

What about: "A man is an adult human who has primary and/or secondary sex characteristics that clearly lean to the masculine direction"

Or something like that. Born25121642 (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

🙂 Born25121642 (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that @WhatamIdoing makes the most cogent and valid point here, and I restate for emphasis.

"The failure to be absolutely clear – clear to the meanest of intelligence; clear to the most motivated POV pusher – on what exactly "adult male human" includes and excludes, is the fundamental source of problems here."

Can we find something along those lines? Does something along those lines exist? Does making something so onerously clear agree with the principles of Wikipedia? No matter what the definition there will be complaints as long as the culture war persists around this topic. Maybe we can find some slightly better wording through this discussion. Theheezy (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course we'll get complaints. No matter what we do, we'll get complaints. But we can put a FAQ at the top of this page to point editors to the articles on other related subjects ("Editors decided that this particular article would be an inclusive article about humans who are men by biological factors and/or by social factors; it is called Man and has a redirect from Man (sex or gender). If you are looking for related subjects, see Man as a gender, which includes cis and trans men, and Biologically male human, which includes cis men, trans women, and some non-binary people) to help people get to the article they are interested in, and eventually people will stop fighting about whether or not the first sentence of this particular page should mention gender.

(We would probably then get a fight about whether this article deserves the primary title of Man vs whether Man should be a disambiguation page, but even that won't last forever, if people come to a decision about what exactly is included and excluded from this article.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

No matter what we do, we'll get complaints. Exactly, end thread. :) More seriously, I am okay with something like a 'previous arguments being restated' template on the talk page like we have at Talk:Trans woman, although I'm not convinced the issue is bad enough to warrant it here. However, we can in no way imply that we will ever have separate articles on 'man as gender' and 'biological male human'; this is not how sources divide the topic of Man, and both aspects are deeply intertwined. That trans men are included is already made clear in the current lead and the existence of exceptional subgroups is not grounds to create overlapping forks. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I can find sources that treat men from a purely biological point of view. I can find sources that treat men from a purely social/gender point of view. Many general-purpose sources don't make a distinction, but many scholarly sources do make that distinction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I think WhatamIdoing is making a very important point. It is indeed entirely up to editors to decide the scope of an article. It is also true that there is more than one definition for many words (look at any dictionary and you'll get different definitions and they aren't sometimes even in anyway related). We can only have one article with that name. At Pregnancy editors decided we would document human pregnancy. The scope of that clearly excludes elephants and dogs, who are covered at Pregnancy (mammals). That was our decision. And before anyone claims WP:WEIGHT forces us to talk about human pregnancy rather than mammal pregnancy, Limb (anatomy) is about "tetrapod vertebrates" and I challenge you to find that the majority of reliable sources even use the word "tetrapod" never mind consider them rather than people. Walking is about "one of the main gaits of terrestrial locomotion among legged animals". Editors writing those decided to value the most inclusive scope they could, at the expense of writing an article with more direct human interest. And there are complications from doing so, because some sections in that article are clearly human specific (e.g., health benefits and leisure). There are trade-offs with every choice.

Our articles use our own words. We can learn things from sources and from similar educational resources, but the decisions we make about word choices and article scope are ours and reflect our values. Clearly editors vary in whether they value inclusiveness or value conciseness or value traditional usage or whatever. But it is up to us, and any editor claiming there is an algorithm for this is not being honest with us. One way of testing claims like this is to go look at uncontentious topics (clearly the definition of a Man or Woman is politically contentious right now). If your rule begins to look silly if we applied it to limbs and walking, maybe it wasn't a rule after all. Maybe you just said it was a rule, because completely accidentally and not on purpose it happened to coincide with what you want. -- Colin°^Talk 11:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't sound right. We do rely on sources to determine the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

No, that's, for example, to govern whether Houston, Texas, grabs the simpler article title and Houston, Renfrewshire gets relegated. And we decided Limb doesn't have a primary topic, so it is a disambiguation page. But within the concept of a limb as a piece of anatomy, editors decided to have a broad scope. And they made the opposite choice for pregnancy. We decided Foot's primary topic was the piece of anatomy, rather than the measurement, but within that we also decided it applies to all vertebrates, which likely goes against what most links-in, most readers and most sources think for the scope (for them is one of the two things you put in your shoes). At some point, someone might come along and say that they think they can write a really great article about human feet, and we'd probably then give them the primary topic place and we'd end up with Foot (vertebrates) covering the wider scope. We are at the mercy of what editors volunteer to write about, or decide together what to focus on.

The guidelines says "There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors. Our sources certainly play a part in scope discussions, because if our sources rarely include as wide a scope as our choice or rarely focus only on our choice, we may end up in difficulties. But it is our choice.

Another example. Rotavirus article covers both the disease and the virus. I remember having discussions with Graham Beards about this decision, because we have many examples where the disease and virus are separate (e.g. mpox and monkeypox virus, chickenpox and varicella zoster virus, measles and measles morbillivirus, and so on). One of us (I forget which) even mocked up some drafts for the split. It was our decision to keep the page scope covering both. -- Colin°^Talk 13:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

There's a big difference between 'we as editors have some leeway', because large bodies of sources can differ from each other, and - to quote you - It is indeed entirely up to editors to decide the scope of an article. Even WhatamIdoing in response to me above stated that splitting an article would be according to whatever categories reliable sources would support. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

This is an interesting theoretical discussion, but I guess I'm not sure what on the ground action it is leading towards? If the suggestion is we make Man a disambig, I think that is wrong. If its a question of what is the scope, I think the scope is "adult male humans", which I think this article currently covers appropriately. I'm not sure that anyone is arguing the scope should change? If so, speak up :) Rather, the issue seems to be are we defining the scope in a way that the average reader can understand, or could we explain that better in the body? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm hoping that it leads to a statement that all the editors here (i.e., in this discussion) can agree upon, that says very clearly what the scope of this page is. I interpret Born25121642's and Crossroads' comments as indicating that they want this article to cover both (biological) sex and (social/psychological) gender equally. That is, to use one model in which the sex–gender distinction is preserved, it covers both adult "male" humans and also adult "masculine" humans. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Charts

Maybe this will help:

Nine categories of adults

		Split by biological characteristics
		Female	Intersexed	Male
Split by gender (social/psychological characteristics)	Woman	1. Cis woman	2. Intersexed woman	3. Trans woman
	Nonbinary	4. Female person	5. Intersexed person	6. Male person
	Man	7. Trans man	8. Intersexed man	9. Cis man

I understand Born and Crossroads to be saying that this article should include 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9, and that it should exclude 1, 2, 4, and 5. Is that what you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Two issues: one, I'd object to including 3 (trans woman), and I'm not sure that is what born or Crossroads is arguing. Two, I'm not sure that "biological characteristics" is the right header for the columns. I think a better division would be "Assignment at birth," (understanding that intersex is not generally assigned at birth, but that one is born intersex) which results in the following chart: CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I was indeed not arguing to include trans women, as I made clear in my 18:20, 9 March 2023 comment. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

That's true; I'm sorry that I overlooked that. Which numbered items would you include, then? 6, 7, 8, and 9? Or just 7, 8, and 9? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Nine categories of adults

		Split by gender assigned at birth
		Female	Intersexed	Male
Split by gender (social/psychological characteristics)	Woman	1. Cis woman	2. Intersexed woman	3. Trans woman
	Nonbinary	4. AFAB person	5. Intersexed person	6. AMAB person
	Man	7. Trans man	8. Intersexed man	9. Cis man

Based on this second chart (chart prime), I think the proper scope for this article is 7', 8', 9'. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Knowing what you think should be included and excluded is very helpful.

Intersex isn't generally regarded as a gender, and it is frequently assigned at birth (or even beforehand, with certain kinds of prenatal testing). Birth certificates record sex, not gender.

I understood Born's and Crossroads' comments to indicate that they wanted this article to include both male-bodied people and masculine-gendered people. All AMABs, including trans women, would be included in the category of male-bodied people, and thus could be included within the scope of this article (only in contexts about being male-bodied, of course). But perhaps I have misunderstood their comments, and they would pick a different set of numbers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

My position has always been that what this article should include and how it is defined is what reliable sources on the topic of "man" or "men" consider relevant, with WP:WEIGHT being followed. Just because gender and sex are distinct concepts does not mean they are unrelated and that material about men's biology should be purged from the article; that would be contrary to the body of sources on men and would be deeply POV if not outright OR. To be fair, it's not clear if anyone is arguing for that. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

It is ultimately better to start with a concept and then determine the title, instead of saying "There must be an article titled ____; let's see what we can put into it". I'm asking what you want to see in the future revisions of this page, which (depending on what editors want to the scope to be) might need to get a different title. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Biological characteristics can be split into multiple categories, at least into primary and secondary sex characteristics. For example, in one case, someone who has undergone steps to transition from more masculine to more feminine may still have male primary sex characteristics, but may have changed some of their secondary sex characteristics due to hormone therapy. Born25121642 (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Born25121642, which numbered items would you include? Would you include trans women? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, a man is someone who has a gender of man, tautologically. But I believe gender is more than just social and psychological.

I agree with Alex Iantaffi, Meg-John Barker, and others that gender is biopsychosocial, e.g. incorporating some biological, psychological, and social factors. Born25121642 (talk) 06:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m scratching my head a little over the idea that the concept should come first, and then the title. This seems at odds with how readers use encyclopaedias. Surely they will start with a word or phrase, and then look it up to see what the encyclopaedia has to say about it? Readers access the encyclopaedia by doing lookups on words, not on concepts. When a reader arrives at Wikipedia, all we know about them is the word they looked up. Our job is to tell them about that word by summarising and weighing what the reliable sources say about it. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Barnards.tar.gz, until you know what you're writing about, you can't really figure out the best title for what you've written.

We didn't take this approach back in the early days, and the result was that in 2001, the article on Cancer covered the disease, the constellation, and the astrological sign. Back in the day, this particular article covered biological maleness, gender identity, UNIX help pages, an island, and several other things that are all called "man". The concept of a disambiguation page didn't emerge until 2002, and it took a couple of years to split all the articles. It's really much more functional to figure out what you're writing about first, and then pick a suitable name, than to start with an article title and guess which of several things called "man" you're going to write about.

If you start off saying "The article title is Man. Therefore, we write about whatever sources call 'Man'", then you're either going to add information to this page about Man or Man or Man or Man or Man or Man or even man – because reliable sources cover all of these, and call all of these "man" – or you're going to discover that you didn't actually mean what you said, because you actually meant to write about whatever the sources say is the kind of man that is not a woman (as opposed to the kind of man that is not a geographical place or a help manual or a unit of measurement or an old-fashioned word for all people). What I'm hoping to accomplish is that we will take that unwritten "that's not the kind of man I meant – I only meant what the sources say about this kind of man" and write it down, right here in public, where any editor can see it and know which kind of man we're writing about here.

So – what kind of man do you think should be written about on this page, which once defined "man" as "The command in the UNIX system to access the electronic UNIX manual"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

This article is the primary topic for "man", which is an adult male human. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

What counts as "an adult male human"? Is an AMAB non-binary person "an adult male human"? More relevantly, is an AMAB non-binary person within the scope of this article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I imagine some sources say yes and others say no, so I think they're in scope. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Please see my recent comment above that starts with "Well, a man is someone who" Born25121642 (talk) 06:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Born25121642, I found your comments above to be open to (mis)interpretation. Do you think group 6 should be within the scope of this article? What about group 3? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I see the premise in a different way. What do you mean about (mis)interpretation? Born25121642 (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

To add here, I believe there are some characteristics, that depending on the situation and the individual, are largely immutable, such as chromosomal makeup. Although I do not know the extent to which this impacts gender. Born25121642 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Your earlier comment is unclear, and it therefore could be interpreted in different ways by different people. My best guess is that you want all genetic males to be included within the scope of this article, but I have little confidence in my guess. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll restate: I think the way that you have the charts set up doesn't tell the whole picture.

We have a clear biological definition of a man, and we also have a societal definition. Both definitions are used a lot. There is a lot of overlap.

A biologically male adult human, that is, having male sex organs, and male secondary sex characteristics, can be thought of as an "Adult human of the male sex". (Note - not just a male human, but a human of the male sex. This is to differentiate between "male sex" and "male gender".) Born25121642 (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The earliest versions of the article addressed sex and gender separately. I suppose that could be a model: a section on "adult humans of the male sex" and a section on "adult humans of the masculine gender". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@CaptainEek, as Kolya points out, some sources are going to include AMAB non-binary people as being "men", at least for some limited purposes. Could you live with group 6 being included in this article, at least to a limited extent, or do you feel strongly about them being excluded? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Well without having seen such sources, I'd say no. I doubt that the weight of sources would agree someone who is actively claiming to not be a man (they are non-binary), is in fact a man. Nor do I think the article currently covers AMAB non-binary folks, so I would see including 6 as an expansion of the scope. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

As a simple example, many existing medical sources say things like "Men are more likely to die prematurely from cardiovascular disease than women". This kind of research has traditionally included AMAB non-binary people and trans women, because it's been based on being male in a biological sense, without regard to gender identity. Assuming you think that health statistics are relevant for an article about a group of people (I do), we could source a statement that says "men" in the US (or developed countries) are about 10% more likely to die from cardiovascular disease than "women". We could likely source the same statement, using "male" and "female" instead. And in the limited amount of trans-specific research, we can probably source a statement that says trans women are more than twice as likely to die from cardiovascular disease than either cis men or cis women. (I don't happen to know if equivalent research has been done for trans men, intersex people, or non-binary people; it probably has been, and the CVD risk is probably high for trans men.)

What would you do with such a source, when they use "men" but you know that their use of the word encompasses people of any gender identity? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not very picky in that regard. If a study was done on men, then unless there is some exceptional reason not to include it, I would include it. I understand reality: a lot of sources have used a biological essentialist approach, but that's not generally a reason to throw out perfectly good research, especially when it comes to statistics. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we use WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guidance to choose the main meaning of “man”, based on what sources usually mean when they use the word “man”. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Barnards.tar.gz, @Crossroads on this and much of this line of reasoning sounds extremely strange. I think what should go in the page Man should be concerned with what typical everyday people mean when they say man. Then we concern ourselves with what reliable sources say about this topic. Then what gets included and excluded and how it's presented depends on reliable sourcing and weight guidelines.

I'm not sure whether coming at this discussion from an existential point of view is helpful here. Theheezy (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

What "typical everyday people mean" is not what the high-quality, modern, English-language scholarly sources mean, so that approach throws us into confusion already. "Typical everyday people" speak Chinese, Spanish, Arabic, and Hindi, and they spent, on average, only 8 or 10 years in school. "Typical everyday people" are not reliable sources.

IMO what we need, unless we want to have this conversation a couple of times a year for eternity, is a decision by regular editors here about what will be on this page. Don't get hung up on the current page title, as that could (at least theoretically) be changed. Let's just make a list of what's in scope and what's out of scope, and write it down. Then when editors inevitably ask, we can point them at the list, and they'll know where things stand. That list can and should be informed by high-quality sources, but we need editors to decide whether the reliable sources that say all male-bodied people count as "adult male humans", or that some "adult male humans" aren't men, are actually relevant to the scope of this article. The sources can't do that for us. Only we can decide what we're willing to include.

Let me give you some real examples:

• This book (pp. 21–22) uses the exact phrase "adult male humans" to describe what male-bodied Irish serfs could never become, according to medieval Irish law. Is that within the scope of this article, even though it says that most cis-gendered Irish men weren't legally considered men?
• This book (pp. 3–4) says that "adult male humans" watched wolf pups being trained to hunt, and that this led to the domestication of dogs. Are the actions of these adult male humans within the scope of this article?
• This book (footnote on p 34) says that the etymology of "man" is equivalent to the genderless, sexless anthropos (human) in Greek, and that the old English word for "adult male human" is wer (as in werewolf). Is that within the scope of this article, even though it says that a man is any human, and not an adult male?

These are all high-quality sources from academic publishers; they are all reliable sources that could be used in this article.

Here's another: When 'woman' is defined as 'adult female human being' and 'man' as 'adult male human being,' proponents of one view consider these differences biological, whereas those favoring the other account argue that 'woman'...'picks out a social kind, role, or status'. We really can't assume that two people will read "adult male human" and hear the same thing; the reliable sources tell us that some people will read that definition and think "Oh, it's all about biology" and other people will read that and think "Oh, you mean male in the non-biological sense." If we want to settle this, we have to come to an agreement on what is/isn't within the scope of this article.

NB that we don't have to say that any given group is/isn't a Real™ Man. We only have to decide which groups this particular page is going to talk about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

That last source might work well, but I don't know how much weight to give it. Sources describe men as adults with a male gender identity, but traditionally men meant adults of the male sex (cissexual). I'm not easily finding sources which answer the question of whether trans women fit any definition of men anymore.

My thought is that it's appropriate that it's confusing, because the meaning is evolving. We have to explain this. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Books like this one use the word men to describe the population of people who produce sperm or who have XY chromosomes. This is because of the nature of the subject: the book is about infertility. A trans man can't get a diagnosis of oligospermia; a trans woman could.

If you want instead a high-quality source that says "Men are correctly defined as follows:" then the source linked above indicates that there are three models: the two single-meaning positions (biological vs social/gender) and the multiple-meaning position advocated by Bettcher and others. In looking over the comments here, I see some support for making this page be a single-meaning social/gender-only subject, and a little support for making this page be a multiple-meaning position. (I don't see anyone arguing for a plain biological subject; if I missed your view, please speak up.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a page for that discussion on the models? Or a link for Bettcher? That sounds promising. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

unless we want to have this conversation a couple of times a year for eternity - that hasn't happened so far, so why would it happen now? And how can one possibly think there would be less complaint if we purged all biological material and declared that male biology and health has nothing to do with the experience of men in society, or whatever other topical gerrymandering is being proposed? The past existence of other junk on this page like UNIX stuff is completely irrelevant to how we do things now. The topic here is already settled and has been for decades: adult male humans, a topic about which numerous reliable sources speak, and in doing so often address both social and biological aspects together. It would be an immense act of POV and original research to try to insert material about trans women into this page or expunge biological material. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Since there are multiple definitions of male, someone may get the wrong idea and think that "Adult male human" refers, for example, only to "Adult male-sexed human", which in some or many cases would refer only to biological aspects.

To use a programming metaphor, "male" is not strongly typed, and readers are performing implicit type conversion, with different or unexpected results for different people.

Instead, I propose the following: "A man is an adult human of the male sex or the male gender." This makes it clear that the term "male" can refer to both here. Born25121642 (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

But that's the issue isn't it? I see the definition of male as inclusive of both sex and gender (or perhaps transcending them), so explicitly dividing it is oxymoronic. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Definitions of male are typically not inclusive of both sex and gender. Sources typically have multiple definitions, such as wikipedia, the merriam webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/male), google (https://www.google.com/search?q=male+definition), oxford learner's dictionaries (https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/male_1), and notably the cambridge dictionary which specifically denotes male (GENDER) and male (SEX): https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/male

Since most sources have separate definitions for male as sex and male as gender, it makes sense for the wikipedia page to reflect that a man is an adult human of the male sex or the male gender, explicitly. Born25121642 (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

No, using the definition of male to define man is WP:SYNTH in this case because the definition of man is contentious. A footnote for "male" may be a good idea. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I second this concern. I understand that indeed many concepts are amorphous and the necessity to draw a line. However, the desire to have editors decide where that line is drawn is certainly problematic with WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.

However, there is an issue with the wording "adult male human," as there is a certain leaning towards a specific interpretation which has been co-opted by transphobes. I do think the footnote solution is the most reasonable and non-invasive here. Bringing it to the forefront of the lede in the first sentence clarifies explicitly that male can mean sex or gender. An interesting example here is Swastika which is certainly amorphous as both a religious and hate symbol with both interpretations expressed within. Given that both male as sex and male as gender are within the body, it seems reasonable to bring this to the lede.

Ultimately I am proposing that amorphous concepts need amorphous definitions. If reliable sources can't nail down a definition then we shouldn't force one either; neither should we espouse that amorphous concepts are concrete. Theheezy (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Seeing as Kolya, myself, and TheHeezy expressed support for a footnote, I've gone ahead and added one so we can see if that is what folks were thinking/general thoughts on it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I endorse your recent comment that I see the definition of male as inclusive of both sex and gender (or perhaps transcending them), so explicitly dividing it is oxymoronic, and partially for that reason am against a footnote. There are serious WP:WEIGHT and WP:SYNTH issues with framing the article so prominently via such a division. Theheezy mentioned "bring[ing] this to the lede", but I'd emphasize that this is already in the lead, and in a better manner I believe. I get the feeling based on previous comments that many of those supporting this view it as a compromise and not their first choice; however, the number of editors who are actively unhappy with the status quo seems low and not enough to overturn prior decades-long consensus nor a reason to add a footnote - which is itself an unusual practice. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Catching up on the discussion above…

A small subset of sources concern themselves with giving a definition of “man”, while the majority of sources use the word without pausing to explain what they mean. I expect this is because in ~99% of people, sex and gender align under common terminology, and so the meaning of the word is treated as obvious. I think this gives us a clue as to what due weight looks like.

That’s not to say we should ignore the ~1% of people. If there was a section of this article talking about prostate cancer screening, of course it should be inclusive of trans women and AMAB nonbinary people, in that specific context. And if there was a section talking about typical attire or presentation, then of course it should be inclusive of trans men in that specific context.

In short, I agree that the status quo lead sentence is fine. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess all we can do sometimes is stare at each other as we fail to find a solution to a long standing problem. Theheezy (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with CaptainEek's general sentiment on the footnote.

I believe the lede sentence would benefit from something like a note that references a specific definition or meaning of male.

Adam and Eve does this in a similar fashion with the term "myth", with the definition taken from wiktionary. Also, Talk:Adam_and_Eve has a section for "Regarding the use of the word "myth"" that explains this and links to wikt:myth.

If we do it this way, the sophistication of the lede is still there, and there is also surrounding context on "male". Born25121642 (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and made the change. Born25121642 (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m doubtful this BOLD change will remain in mainspace for long without a stronger consensus backing it, but I for one am in favor. The footnote is a novel and relatively inconspicuous way for us to clarify that our use of “male human” in this sentence does not strictly mean “AMAB/XY/penised/sperm-producing human”, an interpretation many editors have defended in prior renditions of the perennial male/man/trans man/woman/female/trans woman lede dispute. Male undermines the interoperation of “adult [sex] human” as a transphobic dogwhistle, while keeping inline with our sources (and the “can refer to sex or gender” graf on Male). Interested to see what comes of this. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 02:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm largely watching this topic from the side but after all the discussion I don't see why a change to the lead was needed. Springee (talk) 06:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Springee This is the result of a long running issue on a variety of pages, as RoxySaunders points out. The issue is that our definitions on the male/man/trans man pages have very frequently led to reader confusion (and of course the same for female/woman/trans woman). While the definitions are themselves correct, we're trying to make the situation more clear for readers. I'll say I preferred my footnote, which was at the end of the sentence and simpler, but I am generally in favor of a footnote. That, or if we could agree on an FAQ that we could point readers to, that might solve the problem. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe we have here a sentence- "A man is an adult male human"- which means vastly different things to different people: To some, "male" is read as more gender-oriented/societal, and to others, it is read as more sex-oriented/gamete-related.

I do think that we should somewhere, somehow illuminate this.

I see two good options here. The first option is to add a footnote to the page saying that people can read the term male in different ways. The second option is to add a footnote that references a specific definition of male that incorporates this understanding, for example the wiktionary definition for male (wikt:male).

I posit that we should note this on man directly, and not only on male.

I received feedback from User:Randy Kryn explaining that a change in this manner would likely require more than a talk page discussion, due to the long standing stable nature of the lead. Randy mentioned the RfC process. Born25121642 (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems above that a clear majority of editors do not believe any change is warranted. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that we know what a clear majority of editors would prefer. I'm not even sure that we know what a clear majority of participants in this conversation would prefer.

I feel like we have reached an agreement that this article's scope definitely includes everyone with a masculine gender identity, plus – albeit to a more limited extent (e.g., in the context of prostate cancer) – anyone who has a male-sexed body. I think it would be good to include that. For example, Resin says "This article focuses on naturally occurring resins." This article could say that in includes both the biological and social meanings. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see where you mean. Born25121642 (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

using the definition of male to define man is WP:SYNTH in this case because the definition of man is contentious That strikes me as somewhat of an illogical argument, as the article already defines man based upon the definition of male where it says A man is an adult male human. The only way this could be different would be if the article instead said A man is an adult Foo, as that would be defining man based upon whatever Foo is.

The reason this keeps coming up at this article, woman, trans woman, and to a lesser extent trans man is because as other editors have alluded to the words male and female have multiple inherent meanings. And this will keep coming up until either this article states which definition(s) of male it's using, or the male article makes it clearer in the first sentence or paragraph that the sex based definition is not the sole commonly used definition of the word. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's not SYNTH; nothing that can be copied word-for-word out of a single reliable source can be SYNTH.

This article needs to state its own subject, without relying on other articles to explain this article's own boundaries. Otherwise, we'll be in trouble if the other article changes its contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

About this: I see the definition of male as [anything] so [not agreeing with me] is oxymoronic.

Um, it doesn't matter how any Wikipedia editor personally sees the definition of anything.

We have sources that use men/male when referring to purely biological matters. We have sources that use men/male when referring to strictly non-biological matters. We have sources that say that both of these definitions exist, and we have sources that say that the existence of multiple different definitions causes confusion. (We even have sources that say that it's good/appropriate to have multiple different definitions, even though that causes confusion.) It's not a problem for this article to acknowledge the existence of multiple definitions, even if some/most/all of those definitions seem "wrong" to some people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@CaptainEek, the source I quoted from links to page 99, and cites a book chapter that appears to be available in this pdf. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC?

I'm think it makes most sense to open an RFC. I have not done one before, so I'm starting to learn about how to do that. Born25121642 (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd be able to help create an RfC, as I have a lot of experience in crafting neutral statements on point. But I think we need to be very sure what our question is (or what our options are), and what we're trying to solve. We can't just open an RfC on a whim; this RfC will probably be a big one, the sort that runs for months and has a risk of gaining news coverage (or worse, troll coverage). If we're changing the scope, we don't necessarily need to change the description sentence. We could simply put that in the FAQ on the article. And I'm not so sure that we're actually the changing the scope at all. From what I'm seeing, there seems to be an agreement that the article is fine as is? Like, I'm not seeing anyone argue that we need to cut/add certain content. Rather, we're running into the limitations of definition. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)