The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in, have 10 edits and an account age of 4 days
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject TikTok, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of TikTok on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TikTokWikipedia:WikiProject TikTokTemplate:WikiProject TikTokTikTok articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues articles
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
A fact from Femboy appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 January 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that one academic described the introduction of femboys to Myanmar as a tactic to achieve an "ideological revolution"?
Unless much substance is added, I think this would be better off at Wiktionary. A. Rosenberg (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know nomination
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'll review this one. Sourcing looks good; the hook is supported by the source (Fascinating article there) and the article more generally appears well sourced. Both image sources check out. Article is long enough, and was converted from a redirect today, so it checks out on newness as well. I like the second hook, but i think it can be shortened a little bit to pack more punch. What about ending it with "to achieve an 'ideological revolution'?"Generalissima (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thank you for writing an article on this! Generalissima (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A femboy After some consideration, I feel this hook might be better as an image hook. If so, the natural option is the one used in the article lede. The hook, after this, addition would read:
... that the introduction of femboys (example pictured) to Myanmar was a tactic to achieve an "ideological revolution"?
Or the same, but using specimen pictured, which is more amusing
Happily, the image given has copyright confirmed by OTRS, so this doesn't need a second review. I'll leave it to the promoter to choose between image hook or not.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello Frzzl, happy new year! I'll take this one and will be claiming this review for points in the WikiCup. Interesting subject matter :) Expect comments within the next few days. All the best, Schminnte [talk to me] 01:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frzzl, I've added my comments. To help the article's further development, I've included some extra points as well that are not needed for GACR (these are marked "Non-GACR"). Feel free to action these or not: the review will be passed without any respect to them. Please respond to any comments by indenting your responses and adding your initial. All the best, Schminnte [talk to me] 23:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the speedy and in-depth review! I'll respond to them and make alterations sometime later today :D
Hi! Not GAR relevant, just a quick note that your signature (I think) caused an issue with the GAN script updating the talk page. I've fixed this for now, but I'd assume it'll do it again next time there's an update. You might want to check out the associated talk page diffs to see what happened. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 00:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm prepared to pass this now. Thank you for your quick replies and readiness to make alterations: it was nice working with you again. Congratulations on your new GA! All the best, Schminnte [talk to me] 20:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (
lists
):
This is a bit of a gut feeling, but I think it makes more sense to have §Attributes after §Usage. I think this is an "important stuff first" scenario, like defining the term first - S
Done - F
Remove
MOS:NOTSEEALSO
- S
taken out - F
Words as words should be in italics, not quotes (
MOS:WAW
). This applies to quite a lot of the text (e.g. "Femboy also spelled femboi"). An italic title will also be needed. - S
Done, italic title added. To confirm, italics when I'm referring to the term itself, no italics when I'm using it as a noun? - F
Yes, so things like "Femboy culture" and "Femboy aesthetic" are fine with no italics - S
Per
MOS:ORDER
, put the engvar template below the hatnote - S
Switched - F
Not sure if the two sentences of §Etymology deserve a level 2 heading. Thoughts on merging with §Usage under a combined heading? - S
Merged. I've put the subheading for the rest of it as "Definitions"; this could be "Definition"? - F
I think the plural is more representative as there are multiple dictionary definitions discussed - S
I think "criticised as an expression of hegemonic masculinity" in the lede qualifies as material likely to be challenged per
MOS:LEDECITE
and should have a cite in both cases - S
Removed - F
General copyedits:
§Lede
in traditionally feminine behaviours: "with" traditionally feminine behaviours? - S
The term originated in the 1990s as a slur [...] where trends such as "#femboyfriday" have received attention. Recommend split to help flow, maybe something like "...1990s as a slur. It has since spread, popularised through internet forums and social media like TikTok, where trends such as "#femboyfriday" have received attention." - S
Replaced, this is much better. - F
If we are linking non-binary, I feel transgender should be linked too - S
Fem wikilink should be in the first occurrence - S
an abbreviation - S
Corrected x2 - F
I feel a merge could be pulled off between the first two sentences (e.g. "The term femboy originated in the 1990s and is a compound from the words fem (an abbreviation of feminine and femme) and boy) - S
Done, and I've bundled the citations to look cleaner. - F
After the term was appropriated on the Internet, femboy communities began – by 2018, the term femboy was found almost exclusively on 4chan, especially on the /lgbt/ forum – the term has become popular on platforms such as Reddit and TikTok.: this construction strikes me as odd. I feel like removing the dashes for periods would help. Mock up: "After the term was appropriated on the Internet, femboy communities began forming. Around 2018, the term femboy was found almost exclusively on 4chan, especially on the /lgbt/ forum. It later became popular on platforms such as Reddit and TikTok." - S
Done, have swapped the present participle for a past one. - F
Non-GACR: I'm not sure about quoting subreddit names. Existing articles like
MOS:MINORWORK
has no mention of internet sites, so I'm inclined to remove quotes unless there's another reason. This would also make it consistent with the unquoted /lgbt/ - S
Wondering why hashtag is linked. If its to be kept, it should be moved forward anyway - S
Done x2 - F
§Reception
"has been praised for "breaking traditional norms of masculinity" and has been" remove has been repeat - S
Done - F
"Wearing a skirt as a famous straight cisgender man does next to nothing for the conversation surrounding gender fluidity. If anything, it emphasises the all-encompassing maleness." Could the quote be introduced before the colon? - S
It could be, but that paragraph is like 70% quotations - would it be better to stick it in a quote box by the side? - F
It should probably remain in text to avoid giving special treatment to one viewpoint, I'm just worried that too a reader it could be seen as a continuation of Lee's quote or a completely different quote - S
Shifted it around a bit, few more square brackets in there now haha - F
"called the "effeminisation" of society as an": as is not needed - S
Done - F
"The alt-right have viewed the emergence of femboys a result" sounds a bit odd. Something like "The alt-right has viewed the emergence of femboys to be a result" flows better in my opinion - S
That sounds a little strange to me too; I've changed it to "deemed the emergence a..." - F
I'm a bit of a hypocrite here, but is (Lightning 2021) a reliable source per
WP:DISSERTATION
? If its been cited in other literature it should be fine - S
Annoyingly didn't find any citations, so I've removed it. - F
Non-GACR: I would love to see direct page numbers for journals - S
Non-GACR: several refs are missing date and author - S
To the above two: I've added authors where they're available. Unfortunately since several of the journals I've used seem to be online only, the Foster & Baker and the Vaught simply have no numbers listed. - F
I can't see anything on Into: what makes this reliable? - S
My bad, also gone. - F
Earwigs shows nothing but quotes, so a broad pass for copyvios - S
Spotchecking six citations at random:
Vytniorgu (2023): pass for verifiability and copyvio - S
Foster and Baker (2022)d: fail for verifiability as it mentions nothing about these quotes - S
Can I check which quotes you're talking about? If the ones in the § Reception, you're correct, I mixed up two quotes I was going to use, it's now fixed. If the ones in § Attributes, no, they're definitely there. I should note your previous point about hyphenating "near perfect" hasn't been done yet, because it's not hyphenated in the original. If we hyphenate it, is there some sort of "altered" tag I need to add? - F
Near perfect was my mistake, its fine to leave I think. The reception quotes were what I was meaning ("d" meaning the fourth cite in the reviewed version), that looks fine now - S
En, En and Griffiths (2013)a: pass for both verifiability and copyvio - S
del Campo (2023): pass for both verifiability and copyvio - S
Tun (2023): pass for verifiability, slight fail for copyvio. There is close paraphrasing in "femboy outfits were encouraged to attract media attention", which glosses "People also encouraged the adoption of femboy outfits to attract media attention" too closely - S
changed to "used to gain exposure" - F
New Socialist (2018)b: is a fail for verifiability. The quote is "By 2018, this connection appears to have resolved with the /lgbt/ board’s users being predominantly transgender women.", which doesn't say anything about femboys being being found almost exclusively on 4chan - S
perhaps "almost exclusively" is too strong, but Gleeson does write ‘Femboy’ is one term with which some /lgbt/ users refer to themselves as, and compared to repression seems like a relatively happy path. Often but not always assisted by HRT, this identifier is an ambiguous one which seems to be found rarely outside of 4Chan. Previously, the Femboy has been little heard of even across the rest of the internet,, so I'm not too far off. Do you still need me to change it? - F
No need to change at all, I somehow missed this quote! Sorry for that - S
Article is sized appropriately, covering major viewpoints and aspects. It stays focussed on the subject of femboys throughout, with good use of summary style - S
Good job balancing viewpoints in this contentious subject. Significant viewpoints, both positive and negative, are represented in the reception section, and neutral language is used throughout. Fringe beliefs are included, but clearly labelled to avoid a false balance. - S
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
The recent history of this page was originally setting off alarm bells, but on further inspection it mostly seems to be reverted vandalism. I wouldn't say that the remaining constructive edits are enough to call this unstable - S
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
File:Cavi.jpg: Licensed correctly with a VRT ticket. Caption seems fine - S
File:Femboy flag.svg: PD tagged correctly as below the TOO. Requirements for unofficial flag use in articles are met as this is discussed in sources. Nitpicking here, but I think the caption should say "A proposed femboy pride flag" or similar since this is one of many designs. Since there are multiple unofficial flags, we shouldn't label this the unofficial flag? - S
Non-GACR: Suggest adding alt text for accessibility - S
Non-GACR: Per
MOS:IMGSIZE
remove fixed px sizes - S
Overall: An interesting and well-balanced article. A few problems to fix in GACR1&2, but still manageable - S
Pass/Fail:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WP:ISATERMFOR
Hi, I recently edited this article changing the first sentences from "Femboy... is a slang term for a male or non-binary individual who express themselves with traditionally feminine behaviours." to "Femboy... is a male or non-binary individual who express themselves with traditionally feminine behaviours." This was to put it in line with the policy described in
WP:REFERS, "the introduction is using a term, rather than mentioning it", meaning the article should be about what the word refers to, rather than the word itself, as that is what Wiktionary is for. Issan Sumisu (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, I understand. However, we do have articles about words themselves and pieces of slang; in a broader sense, something like
I am not familiar with wikipedia editing and discussion etiquette, but I am very familiar with the history of this term from 2010 - present.
The sentence "Around 2018, the term femboy was found almost exclusively on 4chan" is not accurate and should be revised. More effort should be made to provide a complete history of the term's evolution since the 1990's. The term was frequently used in online communities connected to yaoi well before 2018. Its use before this time was very widespread, to the extent that sources to cite should not be difficult for anyone to find, regardless of their familiarity with the term. 2601:642:C003:8780:E866:8D84:D36C:65CE (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sex and gender distinction
@Skyshifter: Firstly, sex and gender are completely different things.
Just because an individual has a penis does not mean that they are male.
Just because an individual has a vagina does not mean that they are female.
Besides genitals (external sex organs), sex is defined by presence of many anatomical structures such as gonads (internal sex organs e.g. testes, ovaries), accessory reproductive organs (uterus, fallopian tubes, cervix, prostate, etc.), sex hormones, secondary sex characteristics, etc.
I know that anatomy has nothing to do with the article.
But differences between sex and gender must be stated.
Male ≠ man
Female ≠ woman
Intersex ≠ non-binary
This is because sex and gender are different things.
It is possible for people to be born without any gender, and they are called
agender people
.
But it is impossible for people to be born without a sex.
what does intersex have to do with anything?
Many intersex people are non-binary, and can also use "femboy" as a label.
You said "we're talking gender here"; "male" is not a gender; "male", "female", and "intersex" are sexes; "man", "woman" and "non-binary(ies)" are genders, along with the agender trait.
The lead sentence can either be:
"A femboy is a male or intersex individual..."
OR
"A femboy is a man or non-binary individual..."
I think that the latter is better because the article mentions gender, and not anatomical sex.
Also, it would be better if all instances of sex are replaced with gender, except for the fact that sex has nothing to do with being a femboy. — CrafterNova[ TALK ][ CONT ] 15:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
male gender". So it is clear that "male" is referring to gender here. That's why I said we were talking gender there. I'd also note that we could be excluding AFAB male or non-binary femboys — which are completely valid — if our lead referred to male sex and intersex instead. Like you said, "sex has nothing to do with being a femboy", so we should indeed only be mentioning gender. The current lead is perfectly fine considering "male" refers to gender here; however, I'm not opposed of changing "male" to "man", if it clears up confusion. Skyshiftertalk 16:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:VAGUE
and confusing to use words, that generally refer to sex, to refer to words that generally refer to gender.
The usage of "male" to refer to the "man" gender, and usage of "female" to refer to the "woman" gender cannot be justified, because if it were, then "intersex" could also be used to refer to "non-binary", but it isn't. There is no valid reason for such ambiguous usage of words, since it rather causes confusion to readers.
This ambiguity in usage of words, for sexes and genders, is rather discriminatory, and, to be fair, transphobic in some cases.
Unfortunately, most Wikipedia policies such as
MOS:LEAD
, etc. do not differentiate between sex and gender.
I think it would be better if we propose changes to these policies at
I believe that such changes are absolutely important for gender-neutrality, sex-neutrality, and inclusivity of all people.
As a fellow LGBTQ+ ally, I sincerely and humbly request for support for this proposal. — CrafterNova[ TALK ][ CONT ] 18:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CrafterNova: Sorry for not responding to your ealier comment, I forgot. I don't think I have a formed opinion on the matter. From what I've seen, it does seem that terms like "male" and "female" can refer to gender very commonly in English, so looking from that perspective, it doesn't seem outright wrong to use the terms that way. Language can change over time, and it seems that "male" and "female" can refer, respectively, to "man" and "woman" nowadays. However, as a non-native English speaker, I can possibly be missing the nuances of the meanings or differences between the words male and man, and female and woman. Skyshiftertalk 19:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"male" doesn't inherently mean AMAB. I would argue that transgender men are male despite being AFAB, for example. "male or nonbinary" and "man or nonbinary" IMHO mean roughly the same thing. Tdmurlock (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite the "Presence" section?
I feel we should remove this; "Reddit has hosted both sexual and non-sexual femboy content: r/feminineboys was started in 2012 and has two hundred fifty one thousand members by February 2024; the site also contains the pornographic r/FemBoys."
I feel this is more of an "expression" thing as opposed to "presence", and tbh is this really need to be mentioned? 108.49.72.125 (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
please remove "bicalutamide" in Attributes section
In the "Attributes" section, there is a passing reference to femboys using bicalutamide as part of feminizing HRT to avoid breast growth. This is very much not accurate.
I am a transgender woman on feminizing HRT, and I take bicalutamide daily. Bicalutamide is often prescribed as an antiandrogen, meaning it blocks testosterone. It does not, however, prevent any breast growth (I have a 34C chest). Tamoxifen can be prescribed to do so, but it also has some pretty dangerous side effects. Ashrose688 (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant?
"seeing that the muscularity of femboys as differentiating them from the labels of effeminate or gay."
are femboys aren't effeminate? What? What does this even mean? The previous quote doesn't even mention muscularity. 172.99.147.181 (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
image displaying a femboy should be removed or changed
who is this random dude with a skirt and thigh high do we even have the permission for that image? this is un-encyclopedic Ratiorain (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a) a Brazillian femboy Instagram model b) yes, check the VRT ticket on Meta c) why? generally it seems to sum up the core elements of being a femboy, and is immediately identifiable as such, so serves well as the lede image. not sure how it's unencyclopaedic, we're not
a Brazilian femboy instagram model? this doesnt sound too general for it to be put in a article that displays a neo-adjective, it should still be replaced with a more general image and not a random image of a Brazilian guy, perhaps a more popular figure will do the job. Ratiorain (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
Generalissima (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
b (lists):
