In preparation for a consensus track on this topic, we're presenting the upcoming proposal to let people know it's coming and discuss any feedback or questions. It aims to address article names, infobox fields, and pipelinking, and is brought to you by the collaborative efforts of WookieeProject: Pride. Our proposal is to:
- Move Sexes to Gender
- Move Sexes/Legends to Gender/Legends
Recently, VergenceScatter and I (Immi Thrax) looked through about 120 canon appearances and sources to improve the Sexes article. In this process, it became clear that "gender" is the official term in canon. While the word "sex" is also used in-universe, it is far less common—we found about five times as many sources for "gender," and the last use of "sex" we found was in 2017. Our count does not include each of the hundreds of pages in the Databank that list a character's gender, but that is the name of the field in the Databank. Since gender is the official terminology for the canon continuity, we should move the page Sexes to Gender, and turn Sexes into a redirect to Gender.
After a collective effort to review 200 Legends sources, we found the uses of "gender" were 1.39 times those of "sex"; there was also a slight overlap where both were used. We also found a trend in usage over time: while the 1990s used "sex" more often, "gender" was the most often term in the 2000s and 2010s up until the canon/Legends split. This shift within Star Wars reflects a cultural shift across those decades. For those who wish to review the data used for those conclusions, please see this spreadsheet. Given which term was used more often and which was increasingly used over time, we should move Sexes/Legends to Gender/Legends.
(We suggest the singular "Gender" instead of "Genders" per Naming Policy 1.3 Singular nouns: Create in-universe article titles using singular nouns unless a subject is always presented in a plural form (example: Electrobinoculars, Stun cuffs).)
Renaming the pages would also make them consistent with the character infobox and our category Individuals by gender. Despite the infobox containing the field |gender=, the contents are linked to pages currently titled "Sexes." (For the record, switching the name of the infobox parameter has been discussed in the past, and ultimately failed.)
Although "sex" and "gender" are not synonyms in modern English usage, Star Wars does not provide separate definitions for those words in-universe and conflates them with each other. This is inaccurate for the real-world use of the words, but a page split (into separate Sexes and Gender articles) instead of a page move would run afoul of our original research policy.
However, we still have to consider what certain language means in the real world for the sake of our readers. Page moves would also make them more accurate to up-to-date real-world definitions. The actual content of the canon Sexes page is focused much more heavily on what is known in the real world as gender, including gender expression and gender roles, not sexes. Most details of characters that we might call one or the other term reflect gender rather than sex. The current page name is inaccurate for its contents, and the contents are in keeping with canon.
The Sexes/Legends page currently fails to meet several basic Wookieepedia standards, such as providing citations and not including original research. It also has not reflected the rich information available in Legends about many species and what distinguishes them. We plan to overhaul the page in the near future to bring it up to basics and incorporate the research gathered for this proposal.
We invite everyone to visit the WP:PRIDE Resources page for Wookieepedia Sex and Gender 101—further information about sex, gender, and various related terms.
Immi Thrax 
(talk) 12:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Counter-arguments
- Counter-argument: The words "male" and "female" refer to sex, not gender. When a source explicitly says the words "male" or "female," it's specifying sex, not gender.
- Counter-counter-argument: Although some real-world references specify the terms "male"/"female" as referring only to sexes and not genders, this is not universal—and more importantly for Wookieepedia, it is not a distinction made in Star Wars. Regardless of continuity, the terms "male" and "female" have been used for genders and sexes alike. The canon Databank, for instance, lists "Gender: Male" and "Gender: Female" for many characters; some Legends sources did the same, and others used "Sex: Male" and "Sex: Female." Legends also used the terms "sex" and "gender" within single sources, even within single entries, thus making no clear distinction. Star Wars does not use certain terms only for sex and other terms for gender.
- Counter-argument: When a character uses "he/him/his" or "she/her/hers" pronouns, or visually passes the "duck test" for male or female, that's their sex. We don't need to know anything about reproductive organs to assume Star Wars is talking about sex, not gender. We can't make assumptions about a character identifying with a masculine or feminine gender from those traits.
- Counter-counter-argument: As far as real-world definitions of the words, we're actually assuming a character's gender from their pronouns, aesthetics, voice, personality, the performer who portrays them, and more. A person's sex is a combination of many characteristics, including their chromosomes, hormones, secondary sex characteristics, and internal and external reproductive organs. We're given far more details regarding the genders of characters than their sexes, including internal narratives regarding their personal identifications with gendered terms and their pronouns. As far as pronouns, while we should not assume gender in reality, "he/him/his" and "she/her/hers" are gendered pronouns that Wookieepedia has always considered indicative of a character's gender specification. (We also want to note that the use of "they/them/their" and other gender neutral pronouns are indicative of non-binary characters in the new Star Wars canon.)
- Counter-argument: Why not have separate articles and separate fields in the infobox for sex and gender? We should split sexes and gender if they have different meanings.
- Counter-counter-argument: Contrary to past suggestions by some editors, we should not be listing an assumed sex for characters in addition to the gender parameter. Listing a sex and a gender would also inadvertently imply that it is significant to know when someone's assigned sex differs from their gender identity, and make it appear that Wookieepedia is taking a transphobic stance on gender and sex by reflecting transphobic rhetoric about gender essentialism. It would also be contrary to Star Wars not defining them separately, thus violating our policies about no original research or fanon. We wouldn't be able to populate a sexes field for characters that haven't reproduced—but even for those that have, the distinction is not one that Star Wars has made.
- Counter-argument: Droids have masculine/feminine gender programming, not sex programming, therefore "male" and "female" refer to sexes and not genders.
- Counter-counter-argument: This argument came up in the prior CT. Legends used masculine/feminine programming in the "sex" field for characters in The New Essential Guide to Characters. While we would agree that droids have gender expression programming rather than sex programming, that's simply another example of how Legends didn't use separate vocabulary.
- Counter-argument: Having a gender field is incorrect for non-sentient creatures. Animals don't have genders.
- Counter-counter-argument: Whether or not animals in the real world can have genders is a discussion beyond the scope of Wookieepedia. As far as Star Wars is concerned, the term "gender" has been applied to non-sentient creatures. As examples, we have banthas in canon ("each [Tusken] individual is given a bantha matching their own gender to care for") and nerfs in Legends (baby nerfs "remain with the ewes regardless of gender" [...] male young are placed with their gender counterparts in order to replace an older ram who is taken to market").
- Counter-argument: If the name "Sexes" doesn't match the content of the page, change the content of the page to match the name.
- Counter-counter-argument: When a name is found to be inaccurate, we change the name. The content of our articles, including their names, must represent the information provided in the source material. Making such a change would exclude canonical information for the sake of having an article to match a particular name, rather than having an article that's named after and documents what's in Star Wars.
Discussion
- This all seems very thoroughly researched and logical. Makes sense to me. Ayrehead02 (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Great job on the research. I would support the CT.
ImpacticForce (Talk) 12:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC) - You can always count on Immi to bring the receipts. I'd be in support of a move. IFYLOFD (Talk) 13:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Immi and Vergence have done some very good research. Moving the pagenames makes sense. Fan26 (Talk) 13:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Seeing how so many sources use gender it only makes sense.—Liverpool92
13:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC) - Very well researched and written. Has my full support. Braha'tok enthusiast (Hello there) 13:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Immi has done a fantastic amount of research, and it's always been a weird thing that our gender= field linked to sexes when that's clearly two different concepts, particularly nowadays. Cade
Calrayn 13:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC) - Great job on researching this thoroughly and bringing up any potential counter-arguments. I would be in support of a CT as well. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly support the CT. Rakhsh (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Amazing work on the research and well thought out proposal, the CT would have my support. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 18:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- This is a CT I would support, there's no reason to be hard-headed when it comes to inclusivity. DFaceG (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Having gone over this with Immi already while she was working on it, full support. Great work! Supreme Emperor Holocomm 21:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's bothered me for a really long time that the gender infobox field points to the article on sex, and now it seems that the term isn't even the mostly canonically correct. The amount of research put into this is quite impressive. Fantastic work. MasterFred(talk) 21:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Immi's initiative will not go to waste here, and I'd really like to stress this point of hers: "We also found a trend in usage over time […] This shift within Star Wars reflects a cultural shift across those decades." Evidently, we should reflect how society has evolved over time and make changes accordingly. As an encyclopedia on Star Wars, I believe that Wookieepedia should document all information regarding our modern mythology accurately, both from a technical/thematic standpoint, and from the ever-changing viewpoints of the authors/community, and the research has proven that such a hugely impactful change to nearly every single IU article here is undoubtedly warranted. OOM 224 ༼༽talk༼༽ 22:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Fantastic work. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 22:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Adding onto all the support here, I fully agree with the move. Nice work to Immi, Vergence, and anyone else involved. Zed42 (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Had to read up about the differences between sex and gender. The former refers to biological characteristics while the latter refers to their role in society and their conception of themselves. Thanks Immi Thrax for taking the lead on this issue. Andykatib 11:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'll repeat what I've said on Discord: this is prep-work you can be proud of. It's great to see those issues taken care of ;) . -- NanoLuukeCloning facility 11:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Anything regarding these potentially touchy subjects that has Immi's blessing, I will support. This must have taken a lot of effort so thanks to Immi as well as Vergence. Wok142 (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- I just wish we had you here, researching and writing airtight arguments like this, a decade or so ago. jSarek (talk) 05:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I gladly support the CT, amazing work! Efe Önem (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
