Talk:Female

@Astaire (and @Lunarscarlet): That line was added to resolve a dispute with @Allice Hunter about the phrase "or is organized to produce", which doesn't appear in the sources. In contrast, the line I added does reflect that source.

It stuck around for about a week before you removed it citing this RFC over on Sex. But that RFC was very specifically about the article sex and many of the arguments used there were specific to that article. It's also two years old and wasn't about whether we should exclude any mention of the multifactorial definition: the primary definition used in this article is the reproductive one so it doesn't contradict the RFC at all, even if it did apply to this article, which it doesn't. Loki (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

that RFC was very specifically about the article sex and many of the arguments used there were specific to that article - the arguments at that RFC in favor of the reproductive definition, which is the one that ultimately held sway, are just as valid for articles such as female and male as they are for sex.

It's also two years old - this would be a reason to hold a new RFC, not to contradict the consensus at the previous one.

wasn't about whether we should exclude any mention of the multifactorial definition - this is simply not true. Your opening statement at that RFC asks whether we should use the reproductive definition, the multifactorial definition, or both. A "rough consensus" to use the reproductive definition necessarily implies that "both" is not an option.

even if it did apply to this article, which it doesn't - no, this is silly. If there were an RFC on whether to use definition A or B for the article color, which ended in a consensus for definition A, this is not an invitation to add definition B to the article blue because the RFC "doesn't apply here". Astaire (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

the arguments at that RFC in favor of the reproductive definition, which is the one that ultimately held sway, are just as valid for articles such as female and male as they are for sex

To quote it (emphasis mine):

The outcome of the RfC is a rough consensus to use the reproductive definition in this article.

Several editors suggested that the content of the article reflects this usage, though some pointed out that this article gets into multifactoral discussion. Overall this line of discussion, centered around MOS:LEAD, suggests that despite some coverage of other topics, this article's focus is around the reproductive definition

There was discussion about what reliable sources say; editors note that many sources that suggest a multifactoral definition do exist, however multiple editors believe that those sources were largely focused around topics other than the one covered by this article, especially with a focus on humans. Overall, this discussion—implicitly focused around the WP:RS guideline, and related policies like WP:NPOV, WP:V and so on—suggests that the latter evaluation has broader support.

The close of the RFC was extremely clear it applied to that article only. If the arguments apply here then you need to run a separate RFC here, because an RFC that explicitly says it only applies to the article it was about doesn't apply here.

Furthermore I don't even think the arguments do apply here: notice that a large part of the decision was that "sex" was about all animals but the sources for a multifactoral definition focus on humans. Well, this page is already much more about humans specifically than "sex" was.

---

The other arguments are redundant but briefly: the definition used here is still the reproductive definition only; a mention of other definitions is not a use. Furthermore, consensus can change even without an RFC; especially over long enough times it's possible to override a local RFC with just an acknowledgement the sources have moved on. But we don't even need to consider either of those because, again, there was no RFC here. The RFC you are talking about simply doesn't apply here at all. Loki (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

The close of the RFC was extremely clear it applied to that article only. - it is silly to suggest that an RFC for how we define a subject on Wikipedia does not have strong implications for how that subject is defined and discussed on other Wikipedia pages. If there is a consensus to use definition A at subject X's page, you should not take this as an invitation to add definition B to other pages discussing X without a strong local consensus, which you do not have. And the source you are citing to justify your rewrite is about the definition of sex in general, not specifically about females.

If the arguments apply here then you need to run a separate RFC here - no, you would need to run a separate RFC, because again, you do not have consensus and the material you added is subject to removal at any time. Your edits sitting unmodified for a week is not a consensus.

Well, this page is already much more about humans specifically than "sex" was. - no, it is not "much more about humans". Excepting the etymology section, which does not bear on the definition, I count a total of two sentences specifically about humans. Including that section, there are six.

the definition used here is still the reproductive definition only; a mention of other definitions is not a use - this is highly misleading. You have rewritten the lede to add the "classically" qualifier to the first sentence, and the multifactorial definition to the second sentence. This goes beyond mere "mention".

Pinging previous participants in the "sex" RFC: @Seraphimblade, @WhatamIdoing, @Plantdrew, @Faendalimas, @Void if removed, @Sideswipe9th, @Alligator24, @Silver seren, @Fig wright, @Torchiest, @Kcmastrpc, @Stca74, @Kajitani-Eizan, @Zanahary, @Senorangel, @Mathglot, @High Tinker, @Crossroads, @Zenomonoz, @PhenomenonDawn, @JoelleJay, @Chalst, @Markbassett, @Beczky, @Gitz6666, @Springee, @Amanda A. Brant, @Pincrete, @ARandomName123, @Last1in, @Peter coxhead, @D6194c-1cc, @BrotherE, @Carleas, @Editor0525, @KingSupernova, @NicolausPrime.

Astaire (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Since I'm being pinged about it, it was certainly my understanding that the RfC at sex applied only to that article, not globally. If we intend to have it have a wider application, that should be an RfC held somewhere other than an individual article's talk page. That said, "some have criticized..." is classic weasel wording. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:56, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

In general we shouldn't assume that an RFC defining a term in one article defines it across wikipedia (there are disambiguation pages for a reason), but this does seem to be the same disagreement as the disagreement there, namely the inclusion of a multifactorial definition of sex on articles primarily concerned with reproductive sex. And an RFC for a specific article that finds a consensus that we should not use a multifactorial definition in an article about reproductive sex, while not dispositive, does suggest a general consensus that multifactorial definitions are inapposite in articles about other reproductive sex concepts (as this appears to be).

My suggestion here is the same as in the discussion for that RFC: expand the about tag to clarify, and include other pages that discuss other concepts that may be referred to by the word 'female'. Carleas (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Responding to the ping. An article level RfC is binding only at the article in question. The outcome of a RfC at article A may be useful when justifying a change at article B but it is not binding on B. It can be useful to reference the logic in one RfC when justifying edits at another article. However, if other editors don't agree then a second RfC may be needed. The above is stated without weighing in on the validity of the edits in dispute here. Springee (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

RFCs aren't actually binding, per the WP:RFCFAQ:

Is the result of an RFC binding?

Not inherently, but an RFC is usually an effective way of determining the consensus of editors, which is binding. The formal closing summary of an RFC is generally considered to be a summary of the current consensus, although consensus can change over time.

But otherwise I think your description is both correct and practical. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Responding to the ping. The RfC discussion on sex referred to is here. I had to remind myself of the arguments, but, having done so, I have little to add to what has been already been said here. Broadly, on first impressions, I endorse Carleas's suggestion that we expand the about tag to clarify, and include other pages that discuss other concepts that may be referred to by the word 'female'. I've yet to read anything that would suggest that the primary topic/meaning of the word 'female' is other than one of two types/functions in the reproduction of massive numbers of species of fauna and flora. That there may be other valid uses of the term, does not alter the core usage AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I generally believe that Wikipedia should aim for consistency across articles. It makes no sense to have contradictory articles; if a statement is correct in one, it's correct in the other. Of course this will be impossible to fully achieve in practice, but it seems like the correct ideal.

KingSupernova (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Two thoughts:

• Loki, I think a large part of the decision was that the article Sex was not just about all animals, but also about non-animals. Anything we say about sex (in the sense of which pairings of anisogamous sexually reproducing individuals can produce offspring) has to apply just as much to mosses as it does to beetles or primates. AFAIK the sources focused on a multifactoral definition are focused on humans in non-reproductive contexts, and specifically on how to assign a given human to one group or the other. If that's your impression, too, then maybe you would clarify that.
• It sounds like we need to decide whether this article should focus on humans, or if it should divide its time more evenly with the other million or so species that have males and females.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I think that's a valid summary of the consensus there, which doesn't apply over here. Besides the basic fact that this is a different article, it focuses much more on humans than sex does.

(I also do somewhat dispute that consensus and believe that the sources there were more general than they were taken for, but as there was a closed RFC I won't relitigate that as the past consensus.) Loki (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I think the heavier focus on humans here isn't really inherent to the topic, and is more so just leftover from this article's relative lack of expansion/editing. The topic of the female sex is quite notable well outside of humans, which much variation in zoology, botany, etc. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

^Delete the 'Some researchers' line. Responding to the ping -- the line is WP:UNDUE such a prominent position or WP:LEAD since it is not a major aspect of the article. Also it seems poorly phrased -- the 'Some researchers' sounds like a WP:WEAASEL or WP:FRINGE item and the phrasing of "non-gonadal" is not understandable. I would suggest make a line down in the body at 'Sex determination' that uses plain English for that paper, perhaps 'Female is still applied for individuals not producing eggs but having female-typical sexual organs.' Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I've reverted to the longstanding pre-dispute status quo from the 25 January edition (which was a bot edit; no humans had edited the article for months). All of the attempts at change since then have clearly been contentious and lack consensus. "Some researchers" and "classically" are vague terms. I agree with Carleas; while the RfC at Sex was technically about that article, the result suggests it is unlikely that most editors would support attempts to make this definition "multifactorial" when that was rejected there. And even if that were to happen, that is the change and needs consensus.

I think that there could be improvement with regard to accounting for the fact that not all females are currently producing ova, and so forth. But that's still distinct from the issue at hand. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:20, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Just noticed the ping and wanted to comment to say I agree with the reversion to the longstanding consensus text. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)