Talk:Biological determinism
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis - Summer Session22
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 August 2022 and 4 September 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sunsh1n3d011 (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Sunsh1n3d011 (talk) 07:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Book "How Life Works" (2024) worth considering?
A review by scientist
References
- from the original on 5 February 2024. Retrieved 5 February 2024.
Drbogdan (talk) 11:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
About radical feminist theorization
@Zenomonoz, hello,
I had added a small part of Catharine MacKinnon's theorization here. I noticed that I accidentally cited the 1991 article instead of the 2023 one, (even though they both tackle the issue), what do you suggest I do at this point? There could be some merit in having a separate section for discussions within feminism and what they say about biological determinism, or a separate article even, I agree that having only one person's argument isn't enough.
What do you suggest? Egezort (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's not clear that discussions within a discipline that is not biology, feminism, have much direct relevance to a biology article. Perhaps the best thing would be to add a 'See also' link to a feminism article that discusses the matter. On the other hand, a brief statement that radical feminists like MacKinnon have argued that xyx might perhaps fit into the 'Human sexual orientation' section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Chiswick Chap,
- In that case, there has to be a separation between biological determinism in the positive sciences sense and biological determinism in the social sciences, because the term "biological determinism" is very relevant in social sciences. Some of it has been discussed in Gender essentialism as far as I've seen.
- This term has far greater uses than biology and I think the article should reflect that, but I'm open to splitting and linking from here to the other page. Egezort (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- An 'As seen by the social sciences' section would make perfect sense here, especially with a 'Main' link to 'Gender essentialism' or whatever. Given that there is already coverage of the social aspects, all we need here is a brief summary, like the lead section of a social article. Splitting the same topic into two is WP:CFORK-ing, a bad idea. Chiswick Chap (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)