Talk:Sex segregation

It seems to me that this type of information should be covered in individual country articles (and to a lesser extent continent/continental section articles). I'm struggling to see how compiling it into one travel topic like this serves the traveller. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

There are some glaring inaccuracies I can already see. Shaking hands with the opposite sex may be illegal in Saudi Arabia and Iran, but this is hardly universal among Muslim countries. I can tell you that it is absolutely not a problem in Malaysia and Indonesia from a legal standpoint, and I think it's probably a minority of Muslim countries that have such a law. Whether the other party is willing to do so is a separate issue though. The dog2 (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think it can be a useful topic, more or less for the same reason many other travel topics can be - people can read it with interest and learn something travel-relevant from it. But you're absolutely right that it's important to distinguish between laws, national customs and customs that relate to only a subset of people. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Yvwv: Hi, the current page banner is not suitable because the subject sex segregation is not only women but both sexes. --Doostdar (talk) 11:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

By all means, try to find a better one, maybe a sign for a women- or men-only facility? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: This image can be a good banner image, even though it only shows men not both sexes in a segregated situation like bakery lines in Iran. This image shows military forces in Saudi Arabia which have been only men since old times till nowadays. However American military forces who are present in this country are of both sexes. All mililtary spaces in Saudi Arabia are male-only and allowing women in the military has been a controversial topic over the past 30 years. In 21 February 2021, King Salman ordered to let women in this always male-only space. While even customers of restaurants and workers of factories are sex segregated in Saudi Arabia, mixing men and women in military spaces, one of the traditionally unisex spaces, seems to be impossible in Saudi Arabia and they would probably work in separate spaces after this order of the king. Military spaces are one the traditionally male-only spaces of the world and only in the 1970s, most Western armies began allowing women to serve in active duty in all military branches while in other countries it remained male-only. --Doostdar (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

The troops banner is unsuitable. It has too strong other connotations and I cannot tell whether the soldiers are all male from looking at it (my first thought was Israeli mixed gender troops - I am not good at uniforms). I don't think the current banner is good, but the policy is to have consensus on the talk page before changing banners. If you find a better one, please suggest it. –LPfi (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

As LPfi said. A bunch of people in uniform doesn't have any clear meaning except that they're an armed force. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: This picture or this one shows that sex segregation of human beings is not restricted to WCs but exists in other places like mosques. Sex segregated places spectrum is wide, specially in Saudi Arabi and Iraq. --Doostdar (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Neither of those is a pagebanner, but I don't find either superior to the current banner, which shows one woman by herself at some public probably non-religious building. Segregation by sex at mosques is pretty much of a default, I think, and not something likely to greatly surprise lots of non-Muslim visitors to any country. Also, the 2nd linked photo is blurry. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Some alternatives: Ground Zero (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Banner 5 is clearest and therefore best. Thanks for the banners! Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Banner 5 SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've put Banner 5 up. If anyone objects, they can revert. Ground Zero (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Re: this edit: I probably should have edited the lede first, then the phrasing in the Iran section. Here's the previous version of the lede and then my edited version:

Sex segregation refers to the physical and spatial separation of humans by sex in public or private places. Most of the world's countries have separation of male and females in prisons, military service, gyms, bathing facilities and toilets.

Sex segregation refers to the physical and spatial separation of humans by sex in public or private places. Most of the world's countries have male- and female-only prisons, bathrooms and toilets.

And the reason is, simply, that I don't think it's true that most countries routinely separate men from women in the military, gyms, beaches or pools. Or at least it sure isn't clear that that's the rule. None of that is the rule in the U.S., for example. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: You mean male and females are not separated in military service, pools and gyms in most countries? But as far as I know sport games like swimming, wrestling, ... are segregated by sex in all countries. --Doostdar (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

• "segregated" here is too harsh and inappropriate a word to be applied in a sports context. Here in Brazil, I have friends who coach athletes, and I attend several local competitions and events of many sports, mainly climbing, skateboarding, and martial arts. Male and female matches usually happen in the same event at the same venue, with male and female spectators mingling together. This cannot be described as "segregation", IMHO. Ibaman (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, men and women serve together in many (most, I think?) militaries. Pools and gyms are rarely single-sex in Western and quite a few other countries, I think. Having different sports teams for men and women is not what most people would consider segregation by sex. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: Having different sports teams for men and women is sex segregation as having different toilets. The reality is that in western countries sometimes mixed teams for different sports also exist which is not possible to occur in a country like Saudi Arabia or Iraq as far as I know. --Doostdar (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

We don't need to mention in the lead every situation where genders are separated. A few examples that nearly all readers will recognise suffices, and the rest can be left to the later discussion. Examples that are not recognised will just be confusing, and we don't want complicated reasoning in the lead. –LPfi (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Doostdar: I don't think we should tell about school systems here. You won't have your children in a local school while travelling, and if you stay for a longer time there is many aspects on the education you should check up on. We cannot cover that for every country, and this article will be overwhelmed with such content if we let it in.

Is there something the travellers need to know about sex segregation in schools? If so, we might tell that in Understand – I suppose on a general level, there are not too big differences between countries.

–LPfi (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

If there are countries where all universities are single-sex, that could perhaps be mentioned on the basis that one set of travelers we cater to is university students spending up to a year abroad, but I don't think we've ever made a decision to specifically cater to high school or younger students who spend a year or more abroad (speaking as someone who did so). And even in the case of university students, that would seem more relevant to the Studying abroad article — and looking at the length of that article, it probably wouldn't be welcome there, either. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@LPfi, Ikan Kekek: As you can not enter a country without having visa and you can not communicate with the people of that country without knowing their language, you can not enroll in a school or sometimes university without knowing sex segregation principles in highly sex segregated countries like Saudi Arabia. This principles are sometimes similar e.g. in Iran some universities are female-only but most are not. If a university is not female-only, boys should sit separate from girls in classroom (this rule is approved by Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution). Foreign students should do the same. In some other countries like Iraq the situation is the same. Unfortunately I could not find enough information about sex segregation in Iraq on the Internet but as you said there are not big differences between the countries in the case of sex segregation. In Iran kindergartens are sex-segregated and people learn sex-segregation since childhood. For this I think it's better to say sex segregation in educational institutes rather than schools alone. --Doostdar (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Look at the Studying abroad and see if this kind of discussion would fit there. There are some things about life in countries that a travel guide won't explain fully, though, by design. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Doostdar: I wonder about this paragraph:

If you intend to say in hotel (no matter if you are a local man or a tourist) you are not allowed to enter if you enter with a person of the opposite sex unless you give documents that show you are married.

What do you do if you are travelling with your family, but without your wife, or as young man without your father? Can a man enter with his mother? I suppose you need different rooms, but you should be able to enter as one company. What about children? Is there some specific age beyond which they are treated like independent adults? Can daughters travel with their father or is that seen as suspect? What if the father travels with his children and his sister or some other female relative?

–LPfi (talk) 08:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I added the phrase "out of family members" which is technically called "non-mahram". Of course you can take a room with your family members in hotel, but in Iran a boy and his girlfriend are not allowed to take a room and stay together. --Doostdar (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. We need to be spell everything out, as one cannot rely on common sense where customs feel strange. I suppose I should still check the exact mahram rules if I were to travel with part of my extended family. –LPfi (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

My understanding is that it's no issue for men to travel with members of their family whom they could not marry under Islamic Law under any circumstances, so that would include any male relatives, sisters, mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, daughters, granddaughters and great-granddaughters, but it might not include female cousins, nieces or aunts, if a man were travelling with them alone. In particular, first cousin marriages are common in much of the Middle East, so there are places where a man might risk arrest for khulwa/khalwat if he travelled alone with a female first cousin. The issues with women travelling with women and no men are different, in that there are places where, according to a viciously sexist interpretation of Islamic Law, a woman needs a mahram to travel with her and can't legally travel alone or only with another woman. I don't know if there are many such places; Saudi Arabia is the best-known of them, to the extent that until quite recently, women were infamously forbidden to drive there. But while women can legally drive almost everywhere, that doesn't mean a hotel would necessarily allow a single woman or two sisters (etc.) stay in one of their rooms. I have no idea what kind of reception they'd get in countries I've never been to, especially keeping in mind that I'll never have the experience of travelling as a woman in this lifetime. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I took a tour of Iran in 2017. An Italian man and woman on our tour shared a room, and were not married (or even a couple), and were not related to each other. I do not believe that there was any problem in the 8 or so hotels we stayed in. Individual hotels may have policies or may enforce laws that were not being enforced in the hotels being used by G Adventures, but it appears that hotels that accept foreign tour groups at least are not a problem for non-Iranian opposite-sex couples or travelling companions. Ground Zero (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@廣九直通車: Hi. You just removed some sentences which described how western people react towards Islamic sex segregation and how Muslim people react sex mingling in western culture. It's a cultural shock and many people don't like to talk about but you can see examples of this culture shock almost every where. Even though it's not recorded a lot (because many people don't like to talk about) but it's one of the first things a tourist should know for traveling to Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia. I live in Iran and see that many tourists who come here don't know these sex segregation customs and for example when they try to shake hands with the people of opposite sex it makes many problems for both sides (the local people and tourists). --Doostdar (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comment. I think the example about the Muslim immigrant is less relevant (or frankly, a little bit distractive) to the key point of "the belief of avoiding physical contact between sexes is common among certain Muslim". I suggest that you can add more content on the the section by country, which features a number of Islamic countries. You may also consider adding relevant content in the "Respect" sections of related countries/areas, like Iran#Respect or Middle East#Respect, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think we should be careful about generalising sex segregation practices to all Muslims. What Westerner's tend to be most familiar with is Salafi Islam, which is the version promoted by U.S. ally Saudi Arabia, but there are numerous other ways to interpret Islam, and not all Muslim countries are as strict as Saudi Arabia in this regard. If you go to Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia for instance, men and women can freely mingle with each other, including many practising Muslims. Mosques are still sex segregated, but it's perfectly fine for a man and a woman to have a meal together as friends, for instance. Of course, it's still a more conservative society than Western Europe, so you can't fornicate in the street without being arrested, but it's certainly not segregated to the level of Saudi Arabia. The dog2 (talk) 08:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't think westerners think about habits in Saudi Arabia, other than as an example of extremes. Few Westerners have been there, while East Asia has many popular resorts with Muslim locals and Western guests, as does Egypt, and we have lots of immigrants from Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and e.g. France and Spain from the Maghreb. We should perhaps add some sentences on less restrictive countries in the Muslims section. –LPfi (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand this kind of sentence and believe it's misphrased:

"Sex segregation in Saudi Arabia is so that no age of consent is defined for youth."

I don't think that's the reason for sex segregation in Saudi Arabia (nor in Pakistan, where the same sentence minus the name of the country is given). I also don't understand this sentence on another level, which is that women are allowed to have their young children with them in sexually segregated spaces, such as a harem. So whatever this sentence is supposed to mean, if it's in fact relevant to the topic of sex segregation, it needs to be clarified. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

This is 3-year-old information, but they don't apply to non-Muslims. Are we confident enough to state this plainly? Also, this is relevant: Are Muslim tourists bound to khalwat rules in Malaysia?

In most cases, tourists who visit Malaysia for a short period of time, are rarely affected by this. For the most part, travelers don’t need to worry because hotels are bound by the Personal Data Protection Act 2010, which protects the privacy of guests from any authorities.

Religious authorities are prohibited from obtaining the name list of guests in a hotel. This is stated under Section 8 of the Act which states: “Disclosure Principle Subject to section 39, no personal data shall, without the consent of the data subject, be disclosed”

Therefore, hotels cannot simply give out personal information such as the details of the guests who have lodged in. The extent of Section 8 is explained in Section 39 of the Act whereby, personal data and information can only be disclosed at the consent of the individual involved. Disclosure can only be made under certain circumstances such as, when there is a court order, or if its purpose is to prevent/detect a crime.

So if we're confident this is still true, we should clarify that khalwat laws will not be applied based on who you share a room with at a hotel if you are a Muslim tourist, only if you get caught in a compromising position elsewhere or stay in Malaysia longer than a tourist usually would, such as in order to work or study. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The current wording in the Malaysia section is not very clear. I assume we should explain Syariah Law in the section Muslims (perhaps mostly just linking Islam#Islam and law) – I didn't recognise that spelling and thought it was something more specific. Also khalwat should probably be explained there, and just the extent to which it is relevant told in the country-specific sections. –LPfi (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I made a try, please check. –LPfi (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I made some further edits. One issue is that there are various transliterations of Arabic into Roman letters, so Shariah can be spelled Shari'ah, Sharia or Syaria and what's called khalwat in Malaysia is called khulwa in Saudi Arabia and much more rigorously and extensively enforced there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've never been to Malaysia; but as a general rule, sex segregation in modern societies which practice Islam is not a merely religious thing. It's more a tradition based on Sharia (Islamic rules) continued till present days. For example, in old Iran men and women couldn't be in a horse-drawn buggy with each other. After a while, when cars were every where, this tradition continued but in other forms for example by separating the two sexes in public buses or by introducing pink taxis. The point is that you can not find an exact accordance with Sharia in all cases. Trying to avoid blasphemy, we'd better describe the current situation without looking for the reasons. --Doostdar (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

It seems strange when you say "Syariah Law on khalwat does not apply to non-Muslims in Malaysia". Certainly if you want to respect the people you should obey their traditions, even though they don't punish you for your faults. --Doostdar (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's not strange at all. Do you think non-Muslim Malaysians should avoid having sex with or simply being alone together with their girlfriends or boyfriends? I suggest you visit Malaysia someday to understand the country's diverse society. Malaysia is very different from Iran. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Ibaman: I removed the sentence because of the term "sex integration" which means meaningless to me. How do you call a sex-mixed situation or environment? Do you call it "sex integration"? --Doostdar (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sex integration could be when we abolished boy schools and girl schools in the 1970s (there were mixed schools also before, but the last single-sex ones disappeared), or now that we abolish separate gymnastics lessons in school, and separate bedrooms for men and women in the army (voluntarily for now, but I assume the single-sex ones will disappear before long). –LPfi (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

We call this coeducation in the U.S., but it amounts to the same thing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

In US there is now a long discussion on "women's clubs", without any mention about their significance (other than that they had been "part of US history" and "became a movement") or even what they are. Then we have

"Fraternities and sororities traditionally have been single-sex organizations, with fraternities consisting exclusively of men and sororities consisting exclusively of women. They are prominent in Canada, US, Europe and the Philippines.

Neither does the section tell anything more about those. What are they? Associations? Convents? If they are prominent that widely, they should perhaps be explained in Understand rather than just mentioned in a country section.

I think gender-specific clubs and associations, such as traditional sewing circles and gentlemen's clubs, could be discussed in Understand and be done with, except for countries where their role is significant for the traveller. Likewise with convents and religious orders. Are the fraternities, sororities and women's clubs something different?

–LPfi (talk) 07:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

No. The only travelers who are likely to come across them are students on college (university) exchange programs, so they could be mentioned in articles about traveling for education. I also really don't think that this article should attempt to be exhaustive. Mikvehs are single-sex. So what? You are not going to an active mikveh unless you are a Jew who is ritually bathing at one. I can't think of an exception; can anyone? And I don't think we really need to mention men's and women's bathrooms... Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I agree on both points. I also think it is unnecessary to mention Ōokus and other features of ancient architecture (those would be explained by the guide – human or written – when you visit the place).

However, I don't know what your "No" refers to. I did not start this article and don't know what the original thought was, but I assume a point could be to explain some concepts that are similar across several countries (such as the taboo against hand shaking, or separate apartments in some buses). It could also be used for giving some insight in how a society works if men and women are confined to their own circles. I don't know how much of that is realistic – there is the risk of a very long article or a simplified view. Part of that would be to point at the similar concepts in old western societies, which would be more familiar to Western readers.

A third thing might be to prepare a traveller from a very gender-separated society for a society where mixing nearly everywhere is the norm (for that the article name is odd, but I think this article is what comes closest if we want to take upon us that errand).

–LPfi (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I now see that it indeed wasn't clear what my "no" referred to. I'm saying that the existence of fraternities and sororities is unlikely to be noticed by a traveler who does not visit a university, and even then, they might not notice them unless they took a tour that pointed out the fraternity or sorority houses, went there as an exchange student or possibly if they lectured there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

OK. It is still not clear for me what they are, and thus whether they are relevant for Studying abroad or what their counterpart here "in Europe" would be. I assume the women's clubs aren't academic. Are they relevant? The "as recently as 2007" suggests they are of little but historic interest (or something to add to Understand as a parallel to similar development in countries with more segregation). –LPfi (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't know whether fraternities or sororities exist in Europe. In the U.S., they are important parts of social life in many colleges, though not all of them (my undergraduate school had none). They are also called the "Greek life," because they have Greek letters. Some such organizations have importance for alumni, too; U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris has talked about the importance of the sisterhood of the sorority she joined when she went to school at Howard University in D.C., called the "Harvard of historically Black colleges." Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

But normally, they wouldn't be at all relevant to an article about sex segregation, because though fraternities are male and sororities are female, their members typically mix at parties held at the frat or sorority house over kegs of beer and often have sex (and notoriously, not always consensually), or so I understand, never having experienced the Greek life. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

 :-)

It might be an issue for immigrants and long-stayers from sex segregated societies, if they believe the club is properly sex-segragated. You remind me of my university's male and female choirs with similar dynamics ("Swedish-speaking Finland's prime marital service", although sex was left to other contexts) and the boy and girl scout troops, which often have far-reaching cooperation with their opposite-sex peers (perhaps half of the troops are mixed). You can thus join sex segregated associations to meet people of the opposite sex. They still have a mission of providing a sex-segregated environment where you cannot rely on the other sex for skippering your boat or for preparing your dinner, but instead meet as equals in all roles in any cooperation.

–LPfi (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

@LPfi: As far as I have seen and read your sentences never come true in reality. When sex segregation is high in a society, there are more pressure on children and teenagers. In this kind of societies boys and girls practice single-sex education and are told not to approach people of opposite sex. Even they are told wrong things about opposite sex and they are urged to remain virgin. There is no age of consent and violence is seen by teenagers and older people abundantly. --Doostdar (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean by "there is no age of consent"? Would it be legal, then, for a 2-year-old to be married off and raped? Also, really, there is never going to be a situation in which women can't take their babies with them to spaces where adult men are barred entry, is there? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

My edit had two parts:

• I changed "Men and adult boys" to "Men", as I don't know what else an adult boy could be.
• I added a paragraph on ages, where I said adolescents are mostly treated as adults, hoping that that would cover "adult boys" who are not men. I also added a sentence on babies and toddlers, which I think covers what Ikan is saying.

If male toddlers aren't allowed into some women-only spaces, or female toddlers aren't allowed into some spaces were male toddlers are welcome, then we need to adjust the paragraph and point out any such places, in that paragraph or in religion or country specific sections as appropriate.

Older not-yet adolescent children are probably treated as adults in some contexts, and allowed to ignore segregation rules in others (is a 5-year boy allowed to join their mother and sisters in a pink taxi or a women's park?), also depending on country etc. I think leaving that age span "blank" in this paragraph makes that sufficiently clear.

–LPfi (talk) 07:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't think my edit said anything about single- or mixed-sex education, "pressure" or violence. If there is something that should be said about those issues, please add where appropriate. You talk about pressure and violence as they would follow from sex segregation; I assume those advocating sex segregation would disagree. –LPfi (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

From what I've read, if I remember correctly, even in Saudi Arabia, boys can stay in the harem until they get close to puberty, and then they have to leave. (Malaysia is nothing like that; the family lives together until the children get married or go off to college or some job out of town or whatever.) w:Harem says:

A harem may house a man's wife or wives, their pre-pubescent male children, unmarried daughters, female domestic servants, and other unmarried female relatives.

So that's the answer. Pre-pubescent boys can be cared for by their mothers in otherwise female-only spaces. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: Age of marriage is something and age of consent is something else. In some countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran there is no age of consent and adolescents are never allowed to contact with the opposite sex. Even when marrying, parents usually choose bride and groom for their children not the adults themselves. When there is no age of consent in a country it means that citizens can not have sex without marriage even at the age of 50. At lower ages the situation is the same and there is no exception, whether he/she is married or single, whether he/she is consent or not, whether he/she is at the age of 2 or 50. In the case of women-only parks, in most cases in Iran, boys over the age of 2 are not allowed to enter do you call them men?! Doostdar (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Nope, but that needs to be made clear! Most people would be very surprised to read that mothers can't bring their young children to a woman-only space, and this is the first I heard of it! I don't think a prohibition on zina has anything to do with age of consent, and the two shouldn't be conflated. Arranged marriage is also a different and not very closely related topic. I know very well that adolescents are able to get married under Shariah, whether a country does or does not allow them to do so (and the age of consent in Malaysia was set at 18 at a certain point, with I believe no effect whatsoever on Syariah, their spelling, regarding khalwat). If this article is to be useful, anything that travellers can't be expected to know but might be apt to encounter needs to be spelled out, not assumed. You're talking to someone who lived in a rural township that was all-Muslim except for my family for most of the time I was there and was so different from a place like Iran that I don't know anything about the protocols relating to women-only parks in the Middle East; assuming that someone who's never lived in a Muslim village in a Muslim-majority country will know anything about this is a really unwise idea. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@LPfi: Your edits are wrong because maybe you don't have a good conception of a high sex-segregated society. In Iran, officials and guardians of women-only parks are told not to let boys (even those who are not yet adult) enter. So women can't carry their male children (except neonates for milking) because its part of Islamic training. For showing you a real conception of the situation you should know that all kindergartens are sex-segregated as a part of single-sex education and this procedure is also applied to schools all over the country and finally some universities, all university dormitories and libraries. I'm sure that the situation in Saudi Arabia and Iraq is stricter as all universities in Saudi Arabia (with several exception in recent years) are sex-segregated. If you imagine that as a women-right issue, you are completely wrong because men and boys are in the same situation and you should respect human beliefs. --Doostdar (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Just explain everything as clearly as possible in the article. That's the whole point of it, right? (By the way, we don't milk people; the word you're looking for is "nursing" or "breast feeding".) Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, please. You are right that I "don't have a good conception" of countries with that strict segregation. Would a woman's honour get hurt by her face hair being seen by a non-mahram toddler? Or would the toddler get dirty ideas by seeing the faces hair of non-mahram women? If not, why do the toddlers need to be kept out of the park? And what do mothers do when they want to go to the park? Leave the toddlers with the male mahram who accompanied them to the park? What about visiting a family? Do the male toddlers go with the men and female toddlers with the women? These are intriguing questions to me, and real issues e.g. for a woman travelling with a small boy – I am sure most mothers would be uneasy to leave their two-years old with male strangers while going to a separate room (or a women park) with their female friend(s). Of course there is the aspect of women's rights (there is symmetry only in some aspects), but I am not discussing that here, just trying to understand. –LPfi (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@LPfi: Hurting women is not a normal behavior. While it's possible to happen, no one supports that and it's against the law. In Iran such behaviors if happen result in fight between people. The reason for not allowing toddler boys enter is unknown but maybe it's based on religious beliefs. If a woman wants to carry her toddler boy with herself she can go to usual (mixed) amusement parks. In cities of Iran most parks are usual parks and a little number are women-only parks. Interesting to know that in Afghanistan all parks are sex-segregated since Taliban order in 2022, but in Iran, we have usual parks, too. --Doostdar (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

OK. But what about attending a party, just the two of you, when men and women go to different rooms at some point? Hope that somebody will stay by you in the common area? (For the parks, I could imagine that those who made up the rules never had to take care all day, all days, of a child of the opposite sex, and never thought it through.) –LPfi (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

(I didn't talk about hurting women, but about "hurting" her honour/reputation.) –LPfi (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

If it is easier to imagine: are there situations where it would be problematic for you as a man to travel alone with a little girl, a girl too young to take care of herself or to feel safe among strange women? –LPfi (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@LPfi: The short answer is yes. It's problematic (for a man and girl especially if not legally relatives) to travel to a highly sex-segregated country. In Iran, hotels and inns don't host couples without marriage licenses but ordinary people are hospitable and understand cultural difference. In traditional Persian residential architecture, the andaruni was a part of the house for women guests but nowadays doesn't exists anymore in house architecture. There are yet some women-only ceremonies inside the houses but in recent decade, some people don't follow this traditions and call themselves open mind. --Doostdar (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Can you please add this kind of useful information to this article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

They are already in the article. Recent decade changes has been very fast and not well explained. However I'll add notes on mixed parties and valentine party among youth in Iran. --Doostdar (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

History of sex segregation in Iran is complicated. After the Islamic Revolution in 1979 an emphasis on sex segregation of public places was increased. Sex segregation in Arabic countries like Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan has always been stricter but not well documented because of high illiteracy.

Is there one? Should we use alphabetical order? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I cannot figure out what logic there is now. Alphabetical is a good default, and the countries are few enough that we don't need to group them. –LPfi (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Done. Should Israel be in the list with really heavily sex-segregated countries like Afghanistan or the lower list with Egypt? I think in the lower list. It's not a pervasively sex-segregated society. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I think it should be in the lower list. As a foreigner, you can mostly ignore the segregation, except visiting synagogues. In religious buildings you should be alert on such conventions anyway. For sharing a bench, shaking hands or otherwise touching, that's something you need to be careful with in any country, when you meet somebody reluctant to come close. We mention it already in in the sections on Muslims and Orthodox Jews, and should probably say a word on it in Respect. –LPfi (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate the thought behind changing to DNA, but I don't think DNA is used in practice. I suppose sex is determined at birth depending on what the baby looks like, which doesn't need to conform to the common XX/XY model: there are XXYs etc., and some genes may be in the wrong chromosome, or there may be some variation making a gene inactive, or chemical pollution may have influenced development. Still, what was thought to be the sex at that time is usually what counts legally, and in wealthy societies, the child may go through operations to remove any signs that the original guess might not have been right.

Then, of course, in practice, if you look like a man, you are treated like a man, and if you are female according to your passport, then you are supposed to have committed fraud (and vice versa). Operations done to confirm your birth sex are deemed OK, while corrections to a "wrong guess" are thought to be sinful (or whatever).

For those with a "wrong guess" at physical sex, it is easy to see some absurdities. It is more difficult for the transexual where the physical sex was evident at birth. "Biological sex" is still thought to be what you look like, regardless of DNA. Does DNA have any legal bearing in any jurisdiction where you aren't allowed to choose legal gender?

Those could all be thought of as pertaining to "biological sex". Then we have the ones who identify with the opposite sex, or don't identify with one of the two sexes at all, regardless of normal anatomy and normal DNA (to the extent we know the genes involved). What this "identify as" or "feel like being" means is unclear to me, and I assume it varies from person to person. I assume those fighting the concept of social gender believe that such feelings are just fake, misunderstandings or something got by a twisted upbringing. I assume they are wrong, but I don't know enough about that.

–LPfi (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

There are various U.S. states with anti-trans laws, now, that prevent someone whose DNA is male from participating in women's sports, so yes, it is part of the controversy. There are places where there are traditionally more than two genders, though, such as India with the Hijra (no, not the pilgrimage from Mecca to Medina, something else). Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

OK, I didn't think of such special cases. In sports I think such regulations can be defensible. As someone put it: full fairness and full inclusiveness cannot be combined in sports.

How do the Hijras cope when travelling abroad? Do border officials in other countries have problems with their passports? (I think there was something similar in some Native American cultures, but I assume it never got recognised in legislation.)

–LPfi (talk) 09:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Those laws also prohibit trans people from using the bathroom of their presenting sex. Do you think that's defensible? I have no idea what happens when Hijras travel abroad or what their passports say. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

In sports, I though about high-level competitions. It is a pity if trans women cannot compete as women, but in many sports they may have an advantage that can be seen as unfair. In everyday sports, that is not an issue – a (former) professional has a bigger advantage, but nobody is forbidding them from taking part.

I have little sympathy for anti-trans laws. I understand the fear by women to have a man posing as woman share spaces where you are nude, but I don't think the anti-trans folks are trying to solve those (or any other) problems, they just refuse to see that the trans people exist.

–LPfi (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

(I didn't note that the sports regulations where in the laws – that's absurd. It is an issue for the sports organisations to solve. For legislators, it must be recognised in anti-discrimination laws, but that's the other way round.) –LPfi (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

The notorious bathroom law in North Carolina (now repealed) was about the sex listed on an individual's birth certificate, not a DNA-based standard.

As for passports, the US has started issuing non-binary passports too. I'm not sure how often they cause problems when travelling abroad. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hijra in India and Pakistan do not have to be marked "M" on their passports. I believe that they can choose "T" (trans or third gender) or "E" (eunuch) in India, and that the Pakistani passport uses "X".

Chromosomal sex is a very narrow understanding of biological sex. Medically, there are five components to biological sex determination (chromosome+hormones+gonads+genitals+internal anatomy). If they all match, you're either biologically male or biologically female. If they don't, you're biologically intersexed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Three reasons for those not always corresponding are XXY and similar cases, that the relevant genes can have moved to another chromosome (an XX can have Y genes), and that the chemical environment can influence some developments (such that something that should have happened according to the genes never happened). You can, of course, make decisions according to the genes, saying that a human isn't the person they should be, and try to "correct" their sex. That has been done in some cases (guessing the "intended" sex). Not accepting who a person in fact is, is much of what the LGBT controversy is about. Knowing more about the biology just changes the determination of who somebody should be, why they aren't that person, and how to "cure" them (which in most cases isn't possible post factum). –LPfi (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's a case of "not accepting who a person in fact is". I think the controversy is over which factor (the biology or the psychology) should be given primacy in determining "who any person is", and to what extent it should dominate. On the one hand, you have people who think that the biology is absolute, so if your biology says ___, then ___ is "who you really are". If your psychological identity doesn't match, then that's largely irrelevant. On the other hand, you have people who think that the psychological experience is always the only thing that matters, so if your psychological identity is ___, then ___ is "who you really are". I think that most people fall somewhere in between those extremes. Even the most ardent supporters of trans rights want trans women to be screened for prostate cancer instead of uterine cancer. But the debate isn't over accepting "who you really are"; the debate is about what constitutes "who you really are". This is really not different in kind from the person who waits on tables at a restaurant, but thinks "I might be working in a restaurant, but who I really am is an actor". Everyone else is thinking he's a waiter. Who is right? Maybe everyone. (Americans tend to identify with their jobs; hopefully your culture doesn't share this problem.)

(When medical professionals are "guessing the 'intended' sex", they're frequently dealing with a human who does not have a gender identity, aka "babies", so the trans debate doesn't really apply.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think that you are mostly right, but those looking at the biological sex and ignoring the psychological factors when deciding on someone's sex, often still want to adjust the psychological sex to conform. If they had no issue with it, they wouldn't want to "cure" trans people. For guessing the sex at birth: while the baby has no sexual identity yet, they will probably develop one according to genetic factors, which means guessing wrong will create a faux trans person in many cases. I assume accepting the non-binary as a fact of life would solve many issues, but I don't know whether accepting them legally and by authorities would help all the children, who would grow up as explicitly non-binary in a society not accepting that possibility. As a parent, I would have a hard time deciding how to raise and treat a non-binary child. Fortunately, over here plays and most customs aren't tied to a specific sex, and you can choose unisex clothes and names. People would still ask whether the child is a boy or a girl. –LPfi (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

You may already be familiar with the English-language terminology, but I assume someone will someday look at this talk page and find this handy:

• Sex is biology, and ignores psychological factors: male, female, intersex
• Gender identity is psychology, and ignores biological factors: man, woman, non-binary
• Gender expression is whether you dress/behave like a man, woman, or androgynous person
• Gender role is how other people expect you to dress/behave
• Sexual identity is whether you think you're the kind person who is sexually attracted to a man/woman/other category

I think the "cure" folks are operating from the premise that "who you really are" is determined by biology (more than just genetics), and they are the loudest of the "other people" who are expecting you to dress/behave according to "who you really are" (according to them).

As for the travelers' needs, gender expression is where most of it lies. It would probably be useful to have a list of places where a gender expression different from your legal gender is illegal. I believe there are still a few places enforcing such laws in general (not just with respect to sex-segregated facilities). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I sort of know it, but such a clear disposition is useful. The list of countries where cross-dressing is illegal (I assume other expressions are less relevant) should be in LGBT travel, and the fact stated in the Stay safe sections for the countries in question. I assume any country mandating the hijab would be on the list. –LPfi (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I didn't succeed in wording the issue (trying to use "integrity"). With girls and boys (perhaps adolescent; adults have the same issues) sleeping side by side in the same tent, besides respecting privacy, you need to control your hands. The same goes for sharing the wide bunk bed of a wilderness hut. I suppose the situation would be awkward for somebody from a sex-segregated country, but it doesn't give more rights (or a pretext) to touch than standing side by side in a crowded bus, and you would trust those you share a tent or wilderness hut with to behave, whether you know them or not. –LPfi (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I get it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Those are common in the U.S., too, but what do they have to do with sex segregation? Nothing. They're just a way for bars to get more women to show up and thereby improve the sex ratio. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'll admit it's tangential, but I was wondering if that was unusual in the West, since I hardly ever go to bars these days. It's not segregation per se, but men's rights activists may see it as discrimination. The dog2 (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

This article is not about disparate treatment of men and women; it's about segregation by sex. Let's not cover other stuff, please. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: If it's a female-only place, it represents sex-segregations. Doostdar (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

OK. Over here "ladies' nights" have something special for the women, but allow men. Note what IK writes: "improve the sex ratio", i.e. have more women in places where males usually are the majority. –LPfi (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Exactly. Bars in the U.S. couldn't have nights when men are not allowed even if they wanted to, because that would violate anti-discrimination laws. I've even been welcomed at lesbian bars; most of them have no problem with a couple of men drinking there as long as they're respectful, and my brother happened to be friends with a bartender at one such bar. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

The article already says sth about sex segregation in Iraq and Saudi Arabia but that's not enough at all. Furthermore it tells nothing about the situation in Syria with women-only village of Jinwar. Doostdar (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please add the information. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Are men forbidden from using the pedestrian-friendly streets? Or are the women-only spaces only at some points along the roads – or perhaps elsewhere? The paragraph on these streets needs to be rewritten for clarity. –LPfi (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I reverted a paragraph about one particular incident of "honor killing", because I don't think single incidents not involving travelers are very relevant to travel. However, I do think that giving a reasonable list of the countries and regions where murders on this basis are common could be relevant to travelers who could get caught up in such situations. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure about that. The killings and repression to guard "honour" are directed towards people who live within that culture, or trying to get free from it, like first or second generation immigrant girls in Sweden – the cases most discussed over here. You won't get involved by travelling to the region. This concerns the same persons who might be forced into arranged marriages (see Talk:Common scams#Arranged marriages).

Giving and pointing to advice for the people concerned is good, if we believe the target group would find it here on Wikivoyage. However, they know they are affected, so listing regions is unimportant. Should we list Sweden? I suppose the risk for an Iranian girl to be murdered to be greater if she happens to live in Sweden than if she lives in Iran, as she wouldn't revolt in Iran.

One thing, of course, is to raise the awareness about honour systems among travellers to these regions. Understand that breaking against khulwa rules you might really put people into danger, and that the honour cultures really do make sense in the societies where they originated and to some degree where they remain.

–LPfi (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I agree that it would be unusual for a foreign traveler to get caught up in such a situation, but in your last paragraph, you bring up just such a possibility, which is the point I'm getting at: if a foreign male traveler compromises a local woman's or girl's honor in certain countries, he could get her killed. Perhaps he might get killed in some places, too. User:Doostdar, do you know much about this? If so, please add any information that might be relevant to travelers. By the way, yes, we should list Sweden and explain the situations in which there could be a risk of an "honor killing" there, if this is a real problem in Sweden. After all, it's by no means impossible for a traveler to get involved with an Iranian-Swedish woman. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't know, but there might cases in Sweden every few years, at least enough for the police and the society seeing it as a serious problem. It isn't about just one man violating khulwa rules, but about a girl refusing to obey any such rules, wanting to live like a Swedish girl. A relation may be the last straw, especially in a case where she refuses to break the relation (I suppose a pregnancy could also be a risk). As a traveller you are unlikely to trigger anything, but if you engage in such a relation, I assume you should know about those cultural conflicts. However, you should not just know about the risk of extreme consequences, but understand the importance of family relations and know about and accept as a fact all of the honour system. –LPfi (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Right. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Honour killings are not a major issue in modern-day Singapore, but in many ghost stories, some places are said to be haunted by women who were raped by Japanese soldiers during World War II, then killed by their fathers to preserve the family's honour (many women are said to have turned into pontianak this way). I could certainly fathom this happening under the strongly patriarchal traditional Chinese culture that my grandparents grew up in, though to my knowledge, it is also no longer a major problem in modern China. I don't know how travel relevant this is, but it's certainly conceivable that a traveller to say, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia could get a women killed by her father by having sex with her. The dog2 (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Honor killings occur mainly in South Asia and the Middle East, but have also been carried out in European countries. India and Pakistan both have recorded rates of 'honour' killings of around 1000 per year, although as ever figures remain unreliable. Doostdar (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Honour killing of Mona Heydari is one the most recent cases in Iran. Don't forget that these killings happen with a higher frequency in highly sex-segregated parts of the world. I mean these two are not irrelevant at all but writing about them seems a little difficult while very important even for travelers to highly sex-segregated countries. Doostdar (talk) 11:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think we should add a remark like what's in your first paragraph. If you can think of examples of non-Muslim visitors who have been killed or gotten their partners killed in honor killings, we could add one or two examples, but I think what's important is to briefly lay out the usual circumstances under which these types of murders take place and state that travelers should keep in mind that not only could they ruin a Muslim woman's reputation, they could also possibly get her killed in areas such as the Middle East, South Asia and diaspora communities of people of Middle Eastern and South Asian origin in other countries. I might try my hand and writing something up later, though please start if you have the time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Does this also apply to Hindu women in India? I think honor killings of Hindu women are usually because they marry or have a relationship with someone of a lower caste? I doubt that they are likely in the case of a relationship with a foreigner who has the money for leisure travel, but I could be dead wrong. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

One question: when someone murders their spouse or partner for perceived or actual unfaithfulness, is that an honor killing? If so, that is certainly not restricted to Muslims; however, it's different from people murdering members of their own family for ruining the family's reputation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Vidimian: This article is expected to be useful for traveler not all audience. Even though the legendary Amazon society shows us deep roots of sex segregation in past human societies but its traditions doesn't seems to be continued in 21st century societies. I suggest to have just a short paragraph on this old tribe. On the other hand, the article needs some information on sex-segregation trends on modern countries like Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Doostdar (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

That's why they are mentioned in an information box — interesting but tangential to the topic. I'm not sure how the text about them can be summarized; it isn't excessive IMO, and touches on the essentials in a storyline: who they were, how they were relevant to this article, i.e. how they segregated their society, to an extreme, no less, that any modern society wouldn't even think of (I hope), and what can be experienced of them by travellers today (since this is a travel website, after all, as you remarked). Shortening this to, say, "The Amazons were an all-female tribe lived probably somewhere around Terme." doesn't really tell anyone anything about this ancient society quite famous of legendary (well, literally) proportions — a very major river on the opposite side of the world (arguably the most major in the planet) isn't named after them for no reason. Vidimian (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Is this article about life today and/or about history? I think it's about life today, but I guess we need to have this discussion and come to agreement about the scope of this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think it's about today — as all of our articles are, including the so called "historical articles", which pertain to the present-day sites and cultural feats that are related to the main topic of those articles in one way or another. However this naturally doesn't (and shouldn't) stop us from mentioning a little bit of history in, e.g., the "understand" sections or in infoboxes in the case of side topics like the Amazons in this example all the time, if your comment was directly referring to it and not to a general idea about how this article or the articles on this website should be structured. Vidimian (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have argued on this page and would continue to argue that it should prevent us from risking getting bogged down in history by mentioning it except perhaps in introductory sections that give some background to help travelers understand how we got to where we are today. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've had this discussion page in my watchlist for a long time, and just had another read over.

Still, I can't understand how a text about a historical society clearly delineated from the main body of the article could bog down anyone with details. All travel guidebooks use this style all the time, to allow the readers decide whether they are interested enough to read on, or skip to the facts with a larger impact on their travel. It isn't like the "Understand" or "Turkey" sections start with a paragraphs-long, encyclopedic discussion about the Amazons and then go on with how to deal with sex segregation in the modern world or at a Turkish bath.

I understand your concern about (I suppose) getting long and not-very-travel-relevant edits to various articles every now and then; that has been a long-term and common problem at this website.

However, let's look at it from this view: I, the contributor of the text in question, had this little factoid about the Amazons, whose defining characteristics were 1. they were a women-only and extremely segregated society, to the point of limiting the social contracts with men to a single-yearly meeting and the possibility of killing their own male babies, 2. established a significant single-sex state (probably the only one in history in that scale), and 3. were highly militaristic (which alone has a novelty value, because let's face it, whether we like it or not, the military affairs have been overwhelmingly handled by men throughout the written history). So I decided to add it to Wikivoyage.

(As an aside, most of my contributions to this website follow this behaviour pattern: I come across with something, anything at all, through various means, and think whether that would be an appropriate addition to Wikivoyage. If the answer I conclude is yes, then I add it to the article(s) I find most relevant. While deciding whether to contribute the knowledge on hand, I always consider whether 1. it is interesting enough (and not only by my own standards), and 2. always has the travel aspect, either by enhancing a traveller's experience to a destination or leading them to associated sites and traditions, or 3. (for non-physical features) is so site-specific that it in itself makes travelling in a destination more interesting.)

Back to the Amazons, I could (and perhaps should) contribute the factoid on hand also to the relevant destination and (other) topic articles. However, I decided an article titled "Sex segregation" was the most fitting.

Finally, I honestly can't exactly comprehend what is being opposed here. The inclusion of the Amazons in any shape or form in this article, or the detailedness of the current text? If the former, the Amazons are clearly interesting, and not only for history enthusiasts — they are so engraved into the cultures of the following centuries that, as I already mentioned as an example, someone in an altogether different geography and time span likened the people he met on a river to them, and decided to name that river the Amazon — are relevant to an article named "Sex segregation" if not in a very direct way, and are presented in an infobox in the exact way those boxes are meant to be utilized (linked again if anyone has doubts). If the latter, what would the proposed changes be, although I think I thought over every word I used in that text, and tried my best so as not to be superfluous and lose context, yet so as to progressively open up the information provided in the following sentences to allow a more or less complete grasp by the readers who might previously have little idea about the Amazons. Vidimian (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I really like the content of the infobox. Maybe it could be moved to the "Understand" section as interesting background information if we choose to add a subsection about the history of sex segregation at the beginning of that section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ah, okay. That wasn't very clear in your previous comment, or I somehow failed to get it, hence my ranty post above. A clarifying of the blur between the myth and actual history surrounding the Amazons could be another improvement. Vidimian (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

The reason it wasn't clear was that I hadn't made that point. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@The dog2: For individual sites, such as those mentioned in Special:Diff/4518424/4519888, I think it would be much more useful to add a sentence to Sex segregation</span>#Buddhism"}]]}'>Sex segregation#Buddhism and note the restriction in the individual listings in destination articles. I cannot find "Thanboddhay Paya" in Monywa, nor can I find "Mahamuni Paya" in Mandalay. If these are noteworthy enough to mention here, they should be listed there (we should check that we use the same spelling, as somebody like me has a hard time distinguishing different places from different spellings of the same place name; in these cases they may indeed be listed, but not in a way I'd recognise). –LPfi (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oh, it's listed as Maha Myat Muni Paya in the Mandalay article. I've visited that place before, and women are not allowed into the main sanctuary where the holy Buddha statue is located. Only men can enter, and men go inside to place gold leaf on the statue. There is a viewing platform with a window that women can go to view the statue. As for the one in Monywa, I've never been there, so I can't comment. The dog2 (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I suspected there were name variations, and they are a problem when you don't know the language. When mentioning some place, we should always use the same name form, and in many cases we should use the alt= parameter in the listing (or similar constructs in running text). Even similar forms are confusing when you don't know the language (and the place). The Mungwan castle chapel probably being in the Mungwan castle is obvious to an English speaker, while you know that the Bridge of Mungwan and the Bridge of Little Mungwan probably are different bridges. Still, in both cases there are three words, two of which are equal, and that's the only thing a non-speaker sees. This becomes worse in languages where words change shapes (I did see the Mahamuni → Maha Muni, but I didn't know whether the addition of "Myat" made a difference).

I still think that such individual sites aren't usually relevant to this article (while the restrictions are crucial to the listing). Instead we should say something about some Buddhist sites being off limits for women. If this is true for some really important sights, you could mention them as examples (think Tai Mahal or St. Peter's of the Vatican), but these listings don't seem to be that important.

–LPfi (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

That temple is a must visit for anyone who goes to Mandalay. The Buddha statue is considered to be the holiest one in Myanmar, and the site is the second most important pilgrimage site after the Shwedagon Pagoda in Yangon for Burmese Buddhists. But sure, we can try to tweak the blurb to make it more general. The dog2 (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I removed most bolding, all of the recently added. I don't think bolding like this adds anything useful:

• Attukal Pongala is a 10-day religious festival [...] No men are allowed in this festival.
• Noiva do Cordeiro is a village in Belo Vale, Brazil. The name translates to ‘Bride of the Lamb’ in Portuguese. Everything about this little village has a feminine touch. Its houses are painted pink, orange and lilac and its well-manicured trees have cute ribbons on them.

This is about sex segregation, so places were men are not allowed is a natural theme. That they are not allowed to a place listed is no surprise and doesn't surprise anybody. The second example just emphasises everything that makes the listing relevant.

Normal font weight is easier to read, that's why it is chosen in the first place, so bolding should be reserved only to allow readers to find the relevant information (see also Wikivoyage:Creating emphasis: use boldface to call out important topics, use italics for emphasis).

–LPfi (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I agree. The bolding just looks redundant, unnecessary, and cluttersome. Thanks for removing the bolding, LPfi. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

@LPfi: At all female-only situations, men are not allowed to enter, but vice versa is not correct. You reverted my edit for this reason? Doostdar (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

If we in this article say that a place is "reserved for women", then I think it is obvious that men aren't allowed. If there is a place reserved for women where men are allowed, that would need some clarification ("is reserved primarily for women", "is nominally reserved for women, but men are allowed if there is space" or something like that). –LPfi (talk) 10:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think that the second and third paragraphs are not worth mentioning in a section covering an entire vast country, and effectively, advertising, and should be deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I removed them. I think that examples should be used only to further understanding of a general pattern. In these cases I didn't see the general pattern needing further explication. Yes, there are sex segregated spaces also in countries where segregation isn't practised much, and gyms are typical places where such segregation happens. In Turku and Helsinki there are clothing-optional swimming baths (is that the word?) that are sex-segregated by day of week. If these or the US examples are surprising for anybody, then we should expand the Understand (or the lead of the Other countries section) instead of giving examples. –LPfi (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I totally agree that examples should be given only when they help the reader understand the general situation or, I'd add, when they affect notable tourist attractions. What you're calling swimming baths would presumably be either pools or perhaps beaches. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Are there really widespread traveller-relevant practises, where people have to prove their sex? I'd assume the cases are well covered by "in practice" and "in the vast majority of cases", but there seems to be another opinion.

I will revert that addition now. It would be more useful to tell about countries and situations where you aren't allowed to behave as your apparent sex would suggest. If it comes to an argument with authorities, I assume what your passport says would count in most cases, while you might get charged with cross-dressing, and possibly with forgery (and worse) if the passport doesn't agree with the sex the authorities think you have.

In most cases, there will be no argument. If your appearance and ID don't agree, just keep away from any place that has both ID checks and sex segregation. How often are IDs checked at sex-segregated places, especially in the West? I, as a Westerner, cannot remember having seen such checks. Is this an issue particularly in some part of the West? Or was the addition about your being able to choose freely if your appearance suggests one sex and you'd pass as the other by showing your ID? I think that would be unimportant, as just going by your appearance would be easier and less likely to cause trouble.

–LPfi (talk) 09:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

At least in the more liberal parts of the U.S., you have the right to use the toilets of whatever gender you identify as. Right now in Illinois, by law new restaurants must have all-gender toilets to cater to gender non-conforming and gender fluid people. And even in sports, in the NCAA, the rule is that you get to compete as whatever gender you identify as. I believe it is the same at the Olympics too. The dog2 (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

OK. But I think that right is less important than the hassle-free option of going to the toilet according to your appearance. If you insist on using facilities according to your gender although it differs from your appearance, does that happen smoothly in all area where it is your legal right, or do you risk chocking people or getting beaten up? Over here, I don't think a women looking like a man would be welcome in the showers of women (your gender identity is not obvious), and a man looking like a woman would probably get quite some stares if showing up naked on the men's side. –LPfi (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm not as familiar with Europe, but my understanding is except for perhaps Russia and the Caucasus, Europe is generally a liberal continent, so attitudes are generally the same as the liberal parts of the U.S. In the U.S., if you are in more liberal circles, your outward appearance doesn't matter, and the only thing that should matter is the gender you identify as, while the opposite is true in more conservative circles. So when it comes to public bathrooms, if you're in a liberal area like the Greenwich Village in New York City or Castro in San Francisco, then people will just accept that someone with a penis can identify as a woman and use the women's shower, while if you're in a conservative area like say, rural Alabama or Florida, then you might freak people out and get beaten up for doing so. The dog2 (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I assume you are mostly correct. However, people over here don't usually undress in front of strangers of the opposite sex, and if your gender identity doesn't show, then your appearance is the only hint they get. I think most women would be uneasy undressing even in front of somebody looking like a man in women's clothes (it could be a trans woman, but it could as well be an ordinary man sneaking in disguised as woman, and not everybody is OK with the trans concept). This wouldn't generally be a problem in toilets, but it is in shared showers, saunas and changing rooms. Perhaps they don't have facilities that you share nude with strangers in the US (some people from there are uneasy about ours, but I don't know whether they are from specific areas), or then they are way more liberal there than what I expected (of "ordinary" people). You told about liberal areas in liberal states, what about more conservative parts of New York or California? –LPfi (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

(Europe is generally liberal, but there is a huge difference between, say, Italy and Sweden, and I don't think Russia and Caucasus are alone. –LPfi (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC))Reply

Yeah, it does depend on the individual. Even in Chicago, there are more liberal circles and more conservative circles, but overall the majority of Chicago residents are liberal. I have met both liberals and conservatives here, and as you said, conservatives cannot accept the notion of people have a gender identity different from their biological sex, while liberals say that biological sex doesn't matter, so a trans woman should be allowed to compete as a woman at Olympics, no questions asked. If you're in a university for instance, unless you're at an Evangelical religious college, the student body is overwhelmingly liberal (though conservative students of course exist), so as long as you declare that you identify as a woman, using the ladies' toilet should not be a problem even if you have a penis. If you're working in Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan or one of those other big corporations with managers who are millionaires and billionaires, then they might not be as accepting of trans people. And I have a friend whose boss is a conservative (in terms of political views, because he's actually not that religious) Jew who openly calls for a genocide of the Palestinians, so even in a liberal city such people do exist. The dog2 (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

The thing that I cannot deduce from your writing is whether women in these liberal circles generally are OK with a stranger with penis getting nude together with them. I have thought that the tradition of getting nude in the sauna, sometimes even among strangers of opposite sexes (in e.g. some university circles), was something hard to accept across the pond. Are you telling me that liberals in the USA are relaxed enough about nudity that whether people around have a penis or not doesn't matter? Or are you telling that a person with penis appearing among nude women would imply they are a woman, and thus the other women would be as relaxed as before. In the same vein, would men assume a person without penis being a man if appearing nude before them in the showers, and thus ignore their looks? –LPfi (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

If you're talking about a biological male who identifies as a woman man getting nude in front of them, then most liberal women won't be comfortable with that. Generally, liberals in the U.S. aren't that relaxed about nudity. If you're referring to a trans woman with a penis, then it becomes a more open question, but if it's absolutely clear that the person is trans, then I'd say liberal women would accept it and would not voice it out even if they feel uncomfortable. The dog2 (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

That is more in line with what I'd expect. So a trans woman who could pose as male should preferably use facilities for men (and vice versa), even in the most liberal areas, if she is going to get nude among nudes – unless, perhaps, her gender is obvious from clothing, haircut and the like or she is very uncomfortable with posing as male. That would suit the "in practice, the segregation is based on outward appearances". For toilets, unless you have a beard, gender-appropriate clothing etc. should mostly suffice for the appearances part. For those obviously trans, well, they might get problems whatever they do, and I think the advice belongs in LGBT travel. –LPfi (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Americans rarely engage in nude activities with strangers. There's no tradition of a group sauna, for example. As a result, there isn't a lot of opportunity to find out what people think. But based on the one group-un-dressing activity, which is teenagers changing clothes for sports/physical exercise programs at school, I suggest that the answer is that cis-gender women (and/or their parents) do not generally accept anyone with a penis in such a setting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

OK, that's in line with what I thought. Here privacy dividers are sparse in communal changing rooms and showers, such as at indoor swimming pools, saunas and hostels, so adults are in the same situation as US school youth. (There are speculations on this fact creating a healthy view on what a normal body is like, as you aren't confined to photoshopped images). Is the current wording OK (next to last paragraph in the lead of Understand)? –LPfi (talk) 08:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that sounds about right. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Twsabin: What is empowering women? For empowering women what does you have to do? Does it need to segregate the two sexes? You deleted the text below. Would you plaese explain what is sex segregation and what is empowering women?

The Gandhi Nagar railway station has a crew comprised of females only. It is run entirely by 28 female employees including operations stuff, ticket checkers, booking and reservation supervisors. It is the country's first all-women station.

Doostdar (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I thought that this example was unusual, and sought news articles about how only women are employed in this collective. If I remember well, I did find something, and had an impression that the situation is how I described it in the edit summary, and so it didn't seem like a good addition to this article. It also doesn't seem relevant for two other reasons: it isn't something that affects travellers; it's an example on such a micro level that it doesn't aid understanding of a more general situation in the country. At best it's a very ambiguous example. I still think that it's probably about affirmation of women in relation to traditionally male jobs. Regards Twsabin (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

a Guardian article Twsabin (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello. At first, I wasn't thinking about the vast sex segregation in some regions of India, but your strange expressions about example and general view persuaded me to search more about sex segregation in India. I noticed the Guardian article you introduced calls Rajasthan as "The conservative state of Rajasthan". After a little search I found out that "Female labour force participation is lowest on the Indo-Gangetic plain, where Muslim rule was concentrated. It is also much more gender segregated." What you call it an example shows how big is sex segregation in these regions of India and how strictly it's connected to people's culture.

a YouTube video

another YouTube video

Doostdar (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@LPfi: Word Mahram is used for men because in Arabic there are male and female words. Probably you may find another word for females. However in Persian and English it can be used for both men and women. Doostdar (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

• OK, so if you're an adult man, can your grandmother be your mahram, or is the adult grandson the mahram? My understanding was that in strict countries like Saudi Arabia, it was adult women and not men who needed a mahram - more or less a chaperone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Also, it says "probably not your uncle if you are a woman". So is your uncle your mahram if you are a man, or does the "if you are a woman" apply to all the list? If the latter, the sentence could be tweaked into "If you are a woman, a mahram could be ...". Uncles seem to be mentioned in Surah An-Nisa 4:22-23 (as quoted in Wikipedia), but is this something enforced in some practices only, or are some uncles counted but not others? –LPfi (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
    • To me what is more familiar is Non-Mahram not Mahram. A Muslim man has millions of Non-Mahrams in his life with whom he cannot shake hands. The similar situation admits for a Muslim woman. At the other hand Mahrams are a few people for any Muslim man or woman. To tell it simply, a Muslim son, may have a mother and several sisters who are his Mahrams. I'm not sure but maybe in Arabic it's called "Mahrama" not "Mahram" for referring to women but as these terms are as well as used in Persian you can call it Mahram. Don't forget that chaperone is someone else more common in old times. --Doostdar (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
      • This sounds like mahram is always of the opposite gender, as you probably can shake hands with non-mahrams of the same gender (Wikipedia in English uses maharim for female mahrams). It also sounds like the mahram relation is symmetric: if somebody is your maharim, you are a mahram to them, and the other way round (both would be called mahrams in Persian, though). Have I understood correctly? What about underage boys, are they mahrams to their maharims (while their maharim would still need an adult mahram in public)? –LPfi (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
        • That's right that Mahram is always someone of the opposite sex but for women it is not called Maharim but Mahrama. That's quite right that the mahram relation is a symmetric relation. As I said both are called mahrams in Persian and in English it would be better to do so because as I said the number of Mahrams (in Arabic the plural of Mahram is Maharim) is few. One of the Mahrams which is emphasized in religion is wet nurse. Even though it's not very practical in modern Islamic societies, it's emphasized a lot because the Prophet had a wet nurse called Halimah. Maybe for this, there is pressure on underage boys for preventing their relationship with Non-mahrams yet it's even adverse to Islamic laws pertaining to adulthood age. So, independent of your age, you cannot marry your Mahrams while you cannot look (if you're a man) or touch Non-mahrams (whether Muslim or Non-muslim). Khalwa is forbidden for Non-mahram men and women. --Doostdar (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

• In Malaysia, khalwat normally consists only of being together in a secluded place. There is no prohibition on non-mahram men and women looking at each other, such as in places of business where one is a customer and the other is selling something to them. Of course you're not supposed to stare. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Depending on the part of the country everything is different. I think among East Asian regions, Java has stricter religious rules. The same thing applies to Christianism as nowadays many priests marry while it was traditionally forbidden. --Doostdar (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Roman Catholics forbid it except for priests of other denominations such as Anglicanism who are already married and convert. One of the key changes in the Protestant Reformation was priests being allowed to marry, starting with Martin Luther. I'm not sure how strict Java is now (it was a lot less strict than Malaysia in the 70s, but that's a long time ago), but I think there's no doubt the strictest part of Indonesia is Aceh, which is under a strict form of Syariah as part of the settlement that ended decades of warfare between the Indonesian Army and Acehnese separatists (Gerakan Aceh Merdeka - the Movement for Acehnese Independence). Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

(King? You mean Martin Luther himself, don't you?) –LPfi (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Damn it! I do and fully intended to type that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

 :-) –LPfi (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@The dog2: You recently added some text on "burqa in Afghanistan". I don't know why you think that Hijab is related to sex segregation. As far as I know Hijab is another concept, and as a general rule there is no Hijab in places which sex segregation is applied. E.g. in women parks, women often don't wear Hijab because there are no Non-Mahrams. Doostdar (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

In women-only spaces then you're right that the hijab may come off. But Afghanistan is particularly extreme in that women legally can't show their faces to men other than their husbands. The dog2 (talk) 07:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

This article is about women-only and men-only spaces. You shouldn't add text that is not related to sex segregation. Afghanistan is not the only place where women hide their faces. There are many Muslim countries where women hide their faces, for example in most parts of Saudi Arabia women hide their faces from men and the situation is more severe than Afghanistan. Doostdar (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

You're right that dress codes are not necessarily related to segregation at all, but where they're expected or preferred for visitors, it would be useful to let them know. Dress code redirects to Clothes, which doesn't mention the hijab/hejab at all, nor the burka, though it does mention the burkini under "Bathing." That's probably the article where it would be good to have more coverage of expectations and requirements for modesty in clothing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's strange that there isn't a page for "dress code" in this Wiki. Tourists need to know something about dress code in their destination before planning to travel. Doostdar (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and that could be a good article, but in the meantime, it could be developed within the Clothes article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Jpatokal: Saudi Arabia is still the most profoundly gender-segregated country in the world. Even though Saudi Arabia has recently seen reforms it doesn't change the situation completely mainly because it's part of Saudi culture to provide sex-segregation. how did you decide to replace Afghanistan with Saudi Arabia? Even though Afghanistan is under the control of Taliban, it has not been successful in providing lots of sex-segregation maybe because the central government is not powerful enough. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia has a long story of sex segregation. Some examples of this phenomenon are separate univeristies (for different sexes), different salons in restaurants for each sex, etc. Reforms haven't been that effective. In comparison, Iran has seen fundamental reforms especially after Mahsa Amini protests. Young boys and girls mingle with each other in many prevoiusly sex segregated places like beaches, Tehran metro, university facilities like self-services while Saudi Arabia has yet kept its many sex segregational traditions. Doostdar (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I forgot to say that you even see factories with only female staff in Saudi Arabia, something strange in any other country on earth. Doostdar (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Seriously? Women are far worse off under the Taliban today than they ever were in Saudi. No secondary or tertiary schooling, most employment completely prohibited, can't enter gyms or parks, etc. About the best you can say is that they aren't so much segregating as just straight up banning women from doing most things. Jpatokal (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

This concern has been raised earlier, but I'm really struggling to see how this article would ever be useful to a traveller. This is very useful info for each individual country, but are travellers ever really going to go on a tour of the most segregated countries or something? Jpatokal (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

A tour would be an itinerary. It's a travel topic because it's useful for travelers to know about these things, which can have a more or less great effect on their trip and experience. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

As I said a few years ago, I don't think this article is a useful way to organize information for travellers. Articles that mainly consist of information listed by destination can be useful when they're aimed at a specific niche of traveller (e.g. Traveling with a criminal history or Kashrut) and especially when they help with choosing a destination based on some interest or theme (e.g. Harry Potter tourism or Holocaust remembrance). But this article is neither - it's mainly about practical information that applies to all travellers in the relevant destinations. I think the information here should be covered in the relevant destination articles instead of this list. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I also have doubts on this article. I highly doubt that anybody will want to travel to a country specifically to experience sex segregation. The dog2 (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

No, they won't, but I don't think that's the point. However, I think Granger's point is good and well taken. But what it means is that all of the relevant content should be merged as appropriate. Is all of it really topical on country pages? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

More generic advice could probably be covered in the Stay safe and Respect articles as well. The dog2 (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if it's just me, but I quite find it useful to have all the information on one single page. Not specifically this, but pages like this in general. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think the usefulness depends on how general individual pieces of advice are. Much of the Understand section (3½ pages on my screen) would need to be repeated in individual country articles, unless we have this article or the equivalent in Respect and Stay safe. Respect should probably have a link to this article, as should country articles as appropriate.

I agree that most of the country-specific advice should be in country articles; some of what shouldn't be there is of doubtful use for the traveller. –LPfi (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, some of the country-specific information should be removed completely, like the fact that South Korea has some single-sex schools. I'm not sure what to do with the "Understand" section, which has a lot of information that seems obvious to me – do we need to mention that most (all?) countries have gender-segregated toilets? I'm not sure whether the things that are obvious to me would be obvious to, say, someone from Saudi Arabia who's planning a trip to the US. The subsections about religions would probably be more useful in country/region articles and the religion topic articles, and the advice for transgender travellers would be more useful in LGBT travel.

Maybe as a first step we can move the traveller-relevant country-specific information to country articles and remove material that's not traveller-relevant. Then we can evaluate whether it makes sense to keep this article as a general introduction or merge it to Respect, Stay safe, and LGBT travel. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you are right we may divide an article into different sections and transfer the information to the most similar articles. For example, we can divide the article COVID-19 pandemic and transfer the information to articles like Stay healthy, Staycation, Self-isolation after travel and Travel insurance. Doostdar (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@LPfi: I added Pilgrimage to See also section because many of sex segregation cases are related to pilgrimage sites. Doostdar (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Many of the mentioned ones are related to religious sites in general, to getting around, to beaches and spas, even to shopping. Pilgrimage doesn't mention any issues, so the article doesn't deepen one's understanding of sex segregation. Better mention pilgrimages and religious sites as places where sex segregation may be practised (here and in that other article, linking both ways in context). Details on such restrictions should be told in the more specific articles, such as in listings for the places involved and in articles about specific pilgrimages where sex segregation is practised or celibacy expected. LPfi (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply