` :::The RfC is needed because the intro currently only presents femininity as a social construct, when that is debated. This is not about material things that are called femimine. This is about women generally thinking and acting a certain way, which has been called femininty, and what makes a person femimine. What makes a person feminine  biological or sociological factors, or both  is heavily debated. The sources I provided show that. The intro, however? Does not reflect that, and only positions femininity as a social construct. Your description of femininity above  as a ``socially-defined thing``  is exactly what I'm talking about. Many researchers do not agree with that point of view  that femininity is simply a ``socially-defined thing.`` And some of your questions (not the high-heel silliness, etc. you have thrown out about) are what researchers are trying to find out.   :::If everyone here is in agreement that biology forms a part of what we call femininity, then there shouldn't be a problem with putting the biology aspect in the intro. Because, no, it's not currently there, and it's no misinterpretation of mine either. If it were, there wouldn't be so many complaints about the intro (as recently as an IP who responded before me above). So no thank you, I don't need a lesson on gender and gender categories. I hope you understand that your intro is currently biased, and that I asked for unbiased opinions regarding this RfC (AKA outside opinions). I'm not keen on people who are defending the intro cluttering the RfC, which is meant for outside opinions.   `