This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus. Grunny (talk) 01:19, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Hey everyone,

The "Gender" field in character infoboxes has always kinda bothered me. The word "gender" is much more closely associated with the masculine/feminine dichotomy rather than with chromosomal sex. The wikipedia article on gender does an OK job of explaining it; Masculinity and Femininity are genders and are socially-constructed manners in which males and females (Sexes) are expected to behave. If you want to get into the nitty-gritty, you can read a bunch of literature on feminism, queer theory, or some other kind of cultural studies. I don't want to bring any of that onto the table, however; I'd like to keep it strictly based on accuracy and correctness. And when we're talking about "Male," "Female", or even Hutts --- that is, chromosomes --- "Sex" is more correct than "Gender."

Basically, Sex = Male/Female/Hermaphrodite, Gender = Masculine/Feminine.

Since droids have masculine or feminine programming, "Gender" seems more appropriate for them, so this proposal is strictly for all character infoboxes. It's very simple: Sex instead of Gender. I don't really see any room for a third option. Menkooroo 14:40, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

SupportEdit

1. Menkooroo 14:40, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
2. Absolutely, for the sake of accuracy and correctness, as Menkooroo explained. Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 23:06, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
3. Vandalism is what we have rollback users for. Accuracy and correctness, like how Menkooroo said, is why I'm supporting this. NAYAYEN 00:51, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
4. Is it a minor issue? Yes. Is it perhaps only a technicality? Yes. Will it produce more vandalism? Most likely. But isn't that what admins and rollback buttons and the "undo" button that any user can use are for? Yes. And would changing it be more accurate and more consistent with our Sexes article? Yes. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 01:38, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

   Per above. OLIOSTER ^(talk) 01:41, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

5. It's the correct terminology. Grunny (talk) 01:45, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
6. Per Menkooroo and Jujiggum. Master Jonathan ^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 03:07, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
7. Even though it may be misinterpreted by younger minds, we don't censor stuff here—and young children should be supervised when on the dark and dangerous Internet anyway. :P CC7567 ^(talk) 03:11, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
8. Let the vandals come as they may, we will thwart them! lol Good thinking, Menkooroo. Bella'Mia 03:20, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

   Eh, on second thought... bring on the basement trolls and their sad pathetic excuses for a life. It's what rollback is for anyway. Keeps nights lively. Though, I do hope that the change will be something very instantaneous and not be needing a bot. Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 06:20, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

9. Per Jonjedigrandmaster on this one. --Eyrezer 07:56, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
10. ToRsO bOy 08:20, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
11. Strive for accuracy instead of less vandalism. 1358 ^(Talk) 13:27, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
12. The immature low-lifes can try and ruin us. We'll show them. And besides, what better a way to start "the talk". :P MasterFred^(Whatever) 17:08, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
13. Definitely an epic meh, but I'll have to side with grammatical accuracy. DD97^{Which bear is best?} 23:04, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
14. Per Dan, but in addition to being grammatically accurate, I side with this mostly because it's two letters less, which means each page affected page is 2kb smaller. Not a big deal, but a weighting factor. And the irony is not lost on me. SinisterSamurai 22:25, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
15. —Jedi Kasra (comlink) 00:22, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
16. You know, I rather like pressing the "undo" button....Seriously though, does it really matter if a few more not-so-desirable edits are made to characters? People do that anyway. Though it seems like kind of a trivial thing, there really is a difference between "sex" and "gender", and when I think about it, I'm more or less surprised it hasn't been changed before now. I say go for it. And besides, the article is called Sexes, not genders. Bonslywizard^{(Send a transmission)} 23:48, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
17. ASDF1239^-DISCUSSION- 16:30, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
18. Support. This is only proper usage. ~ SavageBob 21:58, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

OpposeEdit

1. JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 14:44, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
2. Graestan^(Talk) 15:07, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
3. I don't really agree. In the younger minds, they might misinterpret the meaning of it. JangFett ^(Talk) 23:44, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
4. IFYLOFD ^{(Floyd's crib)} 00:39, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
5. A "meh" epic enough to oppose. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 01:51, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

   Teff 04:32, November 29, 2010 (UTC) (Vote struck per policy: Less than 50 mainspace edits -- Grunny (talk) 04:34, November 29, 2010 (UTC))

6. I don't understand how "sex" is more specific than "gender." Male/Female/That Third Alien Thing. Gender actually covers those better, per JMAS's comment below. It isn't like the gay characters have said "I'm a woman in a man's beskar'gam" or anything like that. NaruHina ^Talk 04:48, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

   I'm more concerned over the increase in vandalism targets. The Internet is full of trolls and other assorted numbskulls as it is, we shouldn't be providing them with stuff to mess with, particularly such an easy target as "sex." While, yes, the vandalism can be easily reverted, it will no doubt get very annoying when one needs to revert about a dozen instances of "yes, in an airport bathroom!" every single time that they log in. It would be best to try to deter the potential can of worms we'll no doubt open if this change is made. Because, if I wasn't already a mature, upstanding Wookieepedian, but rather some teenage basement troll, I'd be sorely tempted to go start some crap. Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 05:00, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

7. Eh, mostly per NaruHina. Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 16:55, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
8. Per Culator. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 17:25, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
9. Entirely per Culator. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 19:04, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
10. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 19:14, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
11. Culator & Naru.—Tommy ⁹²⁸¹ 19:16, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
12. Gender is more accurate for most characters than sex is. We've never seen "proof" of any character's sex (except in the case of pregnant females); Star Wars's target demographic ensures that we aren't exposed to characters' naughty bits. While we are occasionally explicitly told that a character is male or female, that's only a tiny fraction of all characters. What we have instead is proof of gender; we see socially-constructed cues like clothing, the accentuation of secondary sexual characteristics, and (most often) the use of gendered pronouns, all of which signify a character's gender, not their sex. We don't know what kind of plumbing Senator Fird or Milanda Vorgan were born with; we instead know that Fird wears men's clothing and a beard, and Vorgan is consistently referred to with female pronouns. Those are identifiers of gender, not sex. The example of how droids are treated only further shows this; droids, lacking a biology, obviously have no sex, but they are endowed with personality traits and social cues that give them "masculine programming" or "feminine programming." Again, this is gender (or a simulation of it), not sex. jSarek 07:54, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
13. It's a gross misinterpretation and lack of insight for anyone to determine their decision on this forum based on some perceived threat or fear of increased vandalism. Rather, JSarek has made the most pointed, insightful argument of anyone else in this forum. Those who have supported this proposal on the grounds of "logic" and "accuracy" are mistaken in that this proposed change is influenced almost, if not entirely, based on real-world, OOU definitions and standards, most of which is not defined in such exact terms by canonical in-universe source material. Some sources do identify characters' true sexes, but the vast majority of source material we work with goes no further than to identify specific gender qualities. JSarek speaks of the "proof" we require for any canon material to be asserted on this site, and that's what this opposition vote is all about. Gender, not sex, is the most accurate, non-assumptive representation of canonical material we can make. Once you consider this debate from the perspective of IU, rather than OOU, interpretation, you come to no other conclusion. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:50, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
14. After reading what Tope wrote, I've changed my mind. OLIOSTER ^(talk) 00:58, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
15. Karohalva "Tact: the ability to describe someone as they see themself." 06:42, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
16. It all came down to the flip of a coin. Heads for "sex," tails for "gender," best two outta three. Tails won. Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 05:13, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
    • LMAO Trak, you always bring a smile to my face.—Tommy ⁹²⁸¹ 12:51, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
17. Per Jang. Also, per Dangerdan's first post above. Lele Mj ⁽Holoprojetor) 12:22, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
    • Wait, what? DD97^{Which bear is best?} 20:02, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
      • "I wonder, would passing this CT and changing all "Gender"s to "sex"es substantially increase the profusion of the word on our site? If so, would that affect potential hits on search engines, the content of ads Wikia would put up on pages, etc?" That's a creepy possibility. Lele Mj ⁽Holoprojetor) 15:30, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
        • He was probably confused because you said "first post above"… 1358 ^(Talk) 15:57, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
          • Indeed. All clear now, though. DD97^{Which bear is best?} 21:42, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
18. Per... whatever. Tyber ^Droid 18:05, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
19. I'd like to point out that English uses three linguistic genders (male, female, neuter), but this is only a limit when requiring pronouns for other IU genders. By technical definition, gender implies divisions beyond male and female. Some languages and cultures have far more gender divisions. — Fiolli 05:17, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
20. Just too much confusion already to make any change, apparently would need a long thorough discussion this one if wanted. –Tm_T ^(Talk) 09:08, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

• I won't be devastated if this doesn't pass, but out of curiosity, could those voting "Oppose" at least give a reason why? "Sex" is more accurate, so why should we strive to be contrary to accuracy? Menkooroo 15:24, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • Technically speaking, you may be correct. However, there isn't that big a difference between the two. It's been gender for as long as anyone can remember. If it gets changed to sex, we will forever be reverting vandal edits from |sex=YES! or |sex=as often as they can and the like. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 22:19, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm with Menkooroo about this not being a big issue, but I don't agree that vandal avoidance should ever trump complete accuracy. It's not too difficult of a change to make, anyway. Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 23:09, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
    • I think it's worth noting that we currently have an article called Sexes (not "Genders"). Claiming in infoboxes that male and female are genders is thus inconsistent, too, not just incorrect. And there definitely is a large difference between sex and gender --- the former is biological and is determined by your chromosomes, while the latter is a socially defined style of behaving. We already acknowledge that difference by recognizing that droids have "masculine" or "feminine" programming, so why not go the whole mile? Menkooroo 00:36, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
• It was out of respect for you and giving you the benefit of the doubt entirely, rest assured, Menkooroo, that I did not list my reason to oppose. Consider it Culator's reason, more or less. Graestan^(Talk) 03:23, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
  • I am young, and I personally believe that JMAS is right. Though vandal edits can be reverted, the recent changes aren't patrolled twenty-four seven. (Almost). And though the vandal edits would be found eventually, it does not look professional. Gender is a "softer" word. Meaning that it—though not 100% accurate—looks more "wiki-like." The other word is too sharp. TOO accurate. JMAS is right. It would not look profesional if a bunch of Star Wars fans came on together and saw exactly what JMAS is talking about. Teff 04:31, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
• I honestly don't think that vandalism will be a big issue (assuming that most visitor to our site are over seven years old). Is the Sexes article frequently vandalized? And it's a bit concerning that a fear of vandalism is overriding a quest to be correct in our nomenclature. Also, to correct NaruHina, no, "Gender" does not cover "male/female" better than "Sex" does, and yes, there is a large difference between the two. Male and female aren't genders. They're sexes. Masculine and feminine are genders, and have nothing to do with biology. Menkooroo 05:20, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
  • I was raised under the classical way of speaking, meaning that because "gender" and "sex" are synonyms, the only difference between them being the obvious connotations of the latter. This isn't about biology further than that one has breasts and that one is Ken below the belt; this isn't a scientific study, it's an open-edit wiki about a fictitious universe. Not even to mention that the vandals would raise it as their new battle cry, or that nowadays, LucasArts primarily plays to young children as Star Wars's demographic, or that it just isn't a can of worms we need to open—this change doesn't need to be justified by scientific doctrinal regulations, but rather by common linguistic sense. NaruHina ^Talk 05:49, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
    • Gender and sex aren't synonyms. That may be a common misconception, but it's no more correct than saying that "male" and "masculine" are synonyms. And that's a linguistic argument, not a scientific one. I don't want to call it paranoia, but the idea that this change will lead to constant vandalism seems a little extreme. And anyway, accuracy and consistency should be one of our primary goals at his wiki, and we should be willing to use the rollback button to achieve that. Menkooroo 06:14, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
      • As a note to Naru as well, Hermaphroditism is not "that third alien thingy." It's found in Humans as well. And not just Star Wars Humans. Earth humans. Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 07:19, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm not invested in this issue so I'll not persue it, but to defend my good name, I wasn't talking about hermaphrodites. I meant the third as a catch-all "other" applying to the various alien variables. The Xi'Dec, for example. I forgot to put hemaphrodies in that. NaruHina ^Talk 07:51, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
          • I'm split. I don't mind the vandals. Let them come! But "sex" is a little cruder IMO. I'd always been raised to, though I know the difference, use them interchangably. In common American English, people tend to do that. But just because it's common doesn't mean it's right. idk MasterFred^(Whatever) 13:35, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
            • I understand the hesitation, but as long as we're all mature enough to handle the word and to revert edits of any potential anons who don't, I don't see why it should be a problem. And you're definitely correct in that "common" doesn't equal "right"; a lot of colloquialisms and common slang like "towards" are often weeded out of articles in copy-edits and during the peer review process. Menkooroo 15:53, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
• I wonder, would passing this CT and changing all "Gender"s to "sex"es substantially increase the profusion of the word on our site? If so, would that affect potential hits on search engines, the content of ads Wikia would put up on pages, etc? DD97^{Which bear is best?} 23:14, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
• Just wanted to note down here how discouraging it is that "Epic Meh" is apparently a viable alternative to voting based on logic, accuracy, or reason. Also that indifference is apparently a reason to oppose. Generally, if I'm "meh" on a subject, I don't bother voting, but hey, that's just me. Menkooroo 23:58, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
• I want to respond to jSarek's vote comment without wikilawyering --- I strongly, strongly, disagree, and I think you're very off with your analysis. When we say that a character is male in an infobox, we are most certainly not talking about gender. We're talking about sex, and we don't need to know anything about their "plumbing" in order to make that assumption. We're either working from sources that explicitly say "male/female," going by references to "him/her" in narrative, or performing a duck test based on images. What we definitely aren't doing is making any assumptions about whether or not a character more closely identifies with a masculine label or a feminine label. I mean, male and female link to our Sexes article. I don't mean to sound harsh, but the idea you've put forth in your vote is, quite frankly, wrong. And the idea that we can't assume that a character is a male or a female without knowing anything about their genitals is pretty silly. When we see a character that looks like a human, we assume they're a human (see the duck test link I posted above). When we see a character that looks like a male, we assume they're a male. If you look at reference #2 in this article, my assumption that the character is male is extrapolated from Ultimate Alien Anthology's description of Gotal sexes (not genders). Quite simply, we're not talking about genders in the infobox. Sorry, but that's just not correct. And if it were, we'd be saying "masculine/feminine," not "male/female," which, again, are not genders. Menkooroo 11:30, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
  • You're correct that I overlooked the duck test in my reasoning, which doesn't make my answer so clear cut, but I still stand behind it. The problem is that we, like many outside of the specific disciplines where the sex/gender distinction is important, are conflating the two concepts to such a degree that it's nearly impossible to tease them apart. This is shown by the fact that we're treating references to "him/her" in the narrative as being indicative of sex, when it's the textbook example of a gender distinction. I see only two solutions here, other than removing sex/gender from infoboxes outright. The first is to create separate infobox fields for sex AND gender, with the former being sourced to explicit mentions of sexual identity and duck-test analysis of biological characteristics, and the latter being sourced to pronoun usage, clothing, and other social constructs. The second option is to continue with our conflation of the two concepts in a single infobox field, and use whichever term suits us better. I don't think the first solution works for a Star Wars wiki, as the franchise has never attempted to explore the difference between sex and gender, nor made any effort to even notice the difference between the two; to make the distinction here would be OR. That leaves the second option. So which term would be best? Neither term will be more accurate than the other; we will be using gender cues to assign characters to a "sex" category in exactly the same inaccurate way we're currently using sex cues to assign characters to the "gender" category. Note that we're not alone in this conflation, even among academics; Wikipedia's gender article's opening paragraph discusses (with citation) how "in most contexts, even in social sciences, the meaning of gender has expanded to include sex or even to replace the latter word ... Gender is now commonly used even to refer to the physiology of nonhuman animals, without any implication of social gender roles." Given that, and given the practical considerations mentioned by other users before me, is there any reason to prefer "sex" over "gender"? (As an aside, don't ever be afraid of "wikilawyering" accusations from me. Robust debate between disagreeing parties is important, and I hate how the term is thrown about to chill earnest discussion here.) jSarek 14:28, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
    • Ah, good discussion! Excellent. I completely agree that the first option is a bad idea. Regarding the second option, I think that "sex" actually would be more accurate. True, the franchise has never attempted to explore the difference between sex and gender, but I strongly assert that all authors, when using him/her cues, are doing it with complete intent to indicate sex, not gender. If an author calls a character "he," I honestly don't see any reason to not assume that the character is biologically a male. I honestly doubt that the cues "him/her" are intended to be anything other than sex cues; this is kinda similar to the duck test in that (I believe, anyway) it's a perfectly fair assumption to make. "That character looks like a male, was seen shirtless in a comic, was referred to as 'him' by other characters, but we can't assume that he's biologically a male." ... Really? Come on now. :^P It's also worth noting that many characters are explicitly identified as male/female in sourcebooks; many characters are confirmed to be biological mothers or fathers; The Last Command lets us be privy to the doctor exclaiming "It's a girl/it's a boy" for the birth of Jaina and Jacen; etc, etc.
      
      Regarding the common usage of gender in English today: As common as the mistake has become, it's still a mistake. There's a lot of common language that we don't use in our articles, whether it be slang, colloquial, or what have you. Similarly, cultural studies and other areas of the humanities and social sciences maintain the emphasis of the importance of the distinction between gender and sex. The bottom line is that "Sex" is more correct, and as an encyclopedia, that should always be our goal. "Gender: Male" and "Gender: Female," even if the intent is clear, are incorrect, and are inconsistent with our use of "Gender: Masculine/Feminine programming" in droid articles. This inconsistency promotes the idea that male = masculine and that female = feminine. I really don't think that it's impossible to tease gender and sex apart --- all it takes is this CT, really. Thoughts? Menkooroo 15:06, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
• I just want to say that with the loose exception of Dao Stryver (lol), I don't recall ever having come across any instance anywhere in the SW universe of a male who genuinely feels to be a female inside, or vice-versa. And I am pretty well read. And to be quite honest, when the proposal was first made, I never even fathomed the possibility that changing the wording to "sex" would lead to all the vandalism folks above seem to be expecting and fearing, yet preparing for. Maybe that's just a sign of my age, state of mind, or something else... Aside from that, I really feel like we have bigger gundarks to skin around here than worrying about the wording of something which the intention behind is a given. That's where the "Epic Meh" comes in.—Tommy ⁹²⁸¹ 14:41, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think that being incorrect in an encyclopedia is OK even if one's intentions are good. If it were, we wouldn't have the peer-review process... Menkooroo 15:06, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
    • IMO, the whole discussion on the him=male and her=female thing is completely rediculous. I mean really, I use it to refer to sex. If a guy is gay and really wants to be a girl, he's still a guy, and I label him as such. I'm pretty sure that's nearly universal. MasterFred^(Whatever) 19:29, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
• I wouldn't know where to begin with this, but I'm leaning against, just because we have better things to worry about. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:36, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I don't see why that should be an argument for "oppose" rather than simply abstaining. Or why it's an argument at all, really. Not every CT has to be advocating an incredibly urgent or important change --- even a baby step toward our encyclopedia being the most accurate it can be is a positive thing. I'm arguing that our currently incorrect infoboxes should be correct, but aiming for accuracy should be opposed because we have "better things to worry about?" ... Really? Menkooroo 00:11, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • If everyone was truely worried about other stuff, they'd just vote and get it over with. MasterFred^(Whatever) 00:21, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, to be fair, they have done just that. :D Menkooroo 00:37, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
• I've read Tope's post, and I haven't come to any different conclusion than my original one. If we can only make assumptions about "gender qualities" and not about sex, then we can't make any assumptions about species, either. When we say that a character is "male" or "female," I've always interpreted it as us using the duck test and making assumptions about their biological sex, just as we do for making assumptions about characters' biological species. If a character looks like they're biologically a Human, we say they're a Human. If a character looks like they're biologically male, we say they're a male. That's what the duck test is about: Making incredibly logical assumptions, which we are permitted to do. And I actually am looking at it from an IU perspective --- many droids have masculine or feminine programming. They have gender programming, not sex programming. Ergo, there is a distinction between sex and gender IU. Menkooroo 02:52, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • How retroactively would we be reducing the scope of the duck rule here in the event of a non-consensus? That's definitely the direction in which we're heading. Would Unidentified man in green firing turret, as an example, need to be renamed to Unidentified person etc.? Are we just going to be declining to make future assumptions on sex, or potentially going to unmake all the assumptions that have already made on the subject to be consistent? DD97^{Which bear is best?} 06:19, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
• Firstly, I very much appreciate that Menk, jSarek, and Tope have actually started a dialogue here as opposed to simply stating "Epic meh" or "not important" or "I've decided not to list my reason to oppose." I would like to add to the conversation by saying that if we are going to claim that we are using IU information to infer their gender and not their sex, then we should be putting their gender in the infobox. What I'm saying is that the templates are asking us a question in that field. As it stands, the question is essentially this: "Based on the available information, what gender identification does this individual display?" and by putting "male" or "female" we are answering the question posed incorrectly. It's asking "What type of personality do they have?" and we're responding with "Well, they have a (choose an identifying sexual organ)". So if we're operating strictly off of explicit information as Tope suggests, and we keep the infobox as is, then we should not be putting in "Male" or "Female" but rather "Masculine" or "Feminine". I relatively certain that most of us would rather not do that, so again, for the sake of accuracy, we should make the change to "sex." Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 06:24, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, Dangerdan poses a good question. Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 06:24, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • Strongly per Trayus and DangerDan. Trayus, keep riding that horse; you look great! Menkooroo 06:51, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
• "Epic meh" means different things to different people, I suppose. For me it was a "why are we going to do all this legwork to make something more accurate if the only people who really care about the accuracy in this case are a slim minority of Wookieepedians and probably next to no readers at all." And then others came along and showed that the "accuracy" of the change was highly questionable even then. So epic meh, and try getting off your high horse from time to time. We're entitled to make or not make whatever comments we please. Graestan^(Talk) 06:33, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • Firstly, I wouldn't call 15/15 a slim minority. Secondly, I never said you couldn't make or not make whatever comments you like, I was simply thanking certain users for actually partaking in a conversation about a purposed change, which is really the whole purpose of a CT. If that puts me on any kind of horse, high or not, then so be it. Regardless, if you would like to speak with me about CT procedures or perceived offenses, please do so on my talk page. Both of our comments are beginning to detract from the point of this discussion, I believe. Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 07:50, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • I still see no point in this. What happened to the days where men were men and women were women. It's simple. Requiring everyone to clear their minds of the assumption of sex for characters would require us to do the same for every single reasonable assumption we make. If we can't assume sex, then we can't assume anything. MasterFred^(Whatever) 13:49, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
      • If you look at how many at least partially active editors are on the site, even 50 is a slim minority. And I'm not going to warn you on your talk page, I'll do it here: stick to the CT topic, and how you feel about it, not other voters. Graestan^(Talk) 04:29, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
• I haven't voted, because I don't care which wins, but for the record: switching Gender to Sex universally will cause trouble if we ever see transgendered/transexual Star Wars characters (not in the sense of Hutts who can switch physiologically from male to female and back at will, but in the sense of a man born anatomically female, who refers to themselves as male despite the anatomy.) I doubt it will happen, but I've noticed in some sci-fi the push to have gay characters for the simple sake of having gay characters, without any plot pertinence, so it's possible to one day see some author insert an MTF or FTM trans person into a Star Wars novel for no reason. And if that happens, they would technically be one Sex, but the opposite Gender. Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith ^{-Just shy, not antisocial: You can talk to me!-} 17:21, December 13, 2010 (UTC)