Talk:Sex/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Biological sex in humans

A couple of months ago, @CycoMa blanked the long-standing definition of biological sex in humans. It said:

In humans, biological sex is determined by five factors present at birth: the presence or absence of a Y chromosome (which alone determines the individual's genetic sex), the type of gonads, the sex hormones, the internal reproductive anatomy (such as the uterus in females), and the external genitalia.

The stated reason appears to be dissatisfaction with the sources, which were (1) a university textbook, and (2) a source added by CycoMa.

There are, of course many other sources that make the same basic point with minor variations in the wording:

• While we tend to think of sex as a binary (either male or female) determined by looking at a baby's genitals, the evidence shows that sex is determined by multiple biological factors including chromosomes, hormones, gonads and secondary sex characteristics, as well as external genitalia. ... It is important to remember that sex and gender are two different things: a child or young person's biological sex may be different from their gender identity.[1]
• Biologists have never been under the illusion that genes and chromosomes are all there is to the biology of sex. Today, as in Morgan's time, researchers acknowledge that human biological “sex” is not diagnosed by any single factor, but is the result of a choreography of genes, hormones, gonads, genitals, and secondary sex characters.  Today, academic sexologists typically distinguish between chromosomal sex, gonadal sex, hormonal sex, genital sex, and sexual identity.[2]
• Sex is defined biologically.... While an individuals karotype is used to classify DSDs, the karotype does not define one's sex.  Phenotypical anatomic findings (e.g., ovary/testis, clitoris/glans penis, labial majora/scrotum, labia minora/penile shaft, etc.) more properly define one's sex...[3]
• BIOLOGICAL SEX Sex determination exists on a spectrum, with genitals, chromosomes, gonads, and hormones all playing a role.[4]
• biological sex as determined by chromosomes, hormones, gonads and the formations of the internal and external genitals.[5]
• Biological sex involves characteristics of chromosomes, hormones, gonads, genitalia, and internal reproductive organs.[6]
• physiological markers of biological sex (chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive structures, external genitalia, hormones, and secondary sex characteristics)[7]
• Physiological maleness or femaleness, or biological sex, is indicated by the sex chromosomes, hormonal balance, and genital anatomy.

NB that the first in the list is a medical school textbook published by Elsevier, so there can't really be any claims that "medical" or "biological" or "MEDRS" sources don't define this term.

Biological sex redirects here, so this page needs a definition of how biological sex is determined in humans, and specifically to differentiate biological sex from the narrower concept of chromosomal sex. Genes kick things off, but in birds and mammals, the hormone-producing gonads turn out to be more important in the end. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing look I removed that book because this article is a biology article. None of the individuals who written that book are biologists and do they ever study biology.

This article is a biology only article, which means this article is biological sources only. Barely any of the sources you added are biology sources.

This article is not gonna be some place for activists to spread their propaganda on.CycoMa (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

To help you understand the issues at hand here, is what the articles are saying.

Regarding claims like this

BIOLOGICAL SEX Sex determination exists on a spectrum, with genitals, chromosomes, gonads, and hormones all playing a role.

that source is talking about sex determination. There is a difference between sex determination and sex itself.

this is not a reliable source for an article like this. It's not medical or biological. Not to mention it's from a independent publishing company.

This source is not reliable for an article like this. It's an article on sociology.

This source is not reliable for an article like this, it's sociology.

In general medical and sociological sources are excluded from this article. Sure there are sociobiologists and medical professionals who are both doctors and biologists. But, none of the sources provided have knowledge in the field of biology.CycoMa (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

And even if we consider the idea of medical sources being including. A majority of the sources you presented are not medical sources either.CycoMa (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Which well-attended talk page discussion established the consensus that this is a "biology only article"? Or is there a wider consensus-established policy that designates articles such as this one "biology only"? Absent such a well-established consensus, I feel safe in assuming that this article, like all Wikipedia articles, should summarize with appropriate weight what the reliable sources say about the subject. You might argue against the reliability of the sources, or suggest that they represent such a minority viewpoint that inclusion is unwarranted, but I can't agree that only biology sources are welcome. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers look at the wiki projects this article is linked to.

Not to mention this article is talking about sex across various species. It makes no sense to go in depth on humans regarding the topic.

Unless humans are some special case treasured by God, sure let's give five paragraphs on sex in humans.CycoMa (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thankfully, linking WikiProjects at the article talk page does not limit the variety of reliable sources we can rely upon. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Sources are only reliable depending on the context of the article. The sources she presented don't for the context of this article.

None of the individuals she cited have knowledge regarding the biology of sex or sexual reproduction.CycoMa (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I won't stand in the way of you questioning the reliability of the sources, perhaps by questioning the expertise of the authors, but I can't support discounting a medical textbook because its authors aren't biologists. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

This article isn't a medical article and it never was a medical article. So medical sources don't fit the context of the article. Please understand you don't have to much knowledge in biology to be a doctor.

Also much of the individuals she cited are sociologists. This article is taking about biological sex which means we need sources that know about the biological side of the topic. You wouldn’t cite a technician for an article on history would you?

Like I said either it’s possible to be both a biologist and sociologist or be both a doctor and a biologist.CycoMa (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no strong desire to convince you that your viewpoint is wrong. I hope that WhatamIdoing and others will take this as a note that I am likely to support the inclusion of content sourced to WP:MEDRS. If others have reasons of policy or consensus to state that this is a biology-only article, I would be happy to hear them. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers, I agree with you. I certainly have never seen any significant discussions that declared the subject to be "biology only". I have seen this single editor make such declarations, but I haven't seen anyone else agree with him. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing didn’t you say that this article is about biological sex? If you aware that this article about biological sex, why haven’t you presented any biological sources, do you honestly think sociology sources are appropriate.CycoMa (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I have never said that only sources from the academic field of biology should be accepted in this article. I support this article maintaining the Sex and gender distinction, and being about sex rather than gender, but that's not the same thing as requiring only biology textbooks and biology journals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Please understand the whole WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The sources WhatamIdoing just don’t fit the context of this article. It’s that simple, end of argument.CycoMa (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC) Like it amazes me y’all aren’t understanding what I am getting out here. You are aware this article is about biological sex. But think sociological sources are appropriate for an article like this.CycoMa (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

If the article "is about biological sex", then where is the definition of "biological sex" in this article?

That's really what I'm asking for. It really ought to contain a definition/explanation of the differences between each of these terms:

• anatomical sex
• biological sex
• chromosomal sex
• genetic sex
• hormonal sex
• physiological sex

I'd prefer that this be presented in human context, because that's the context for most readers and most incoming links. But I'm really just looking for the article to contain the definitions. I don't really care what sources get used (as long as they're reliable). I don't really care what the definitions are (as long as they're verifiable and DUE). I just want people who click on these links and end up at this page to be able to figure out what these terms mean. "It's that simple, end of argument." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing it already gives a definition of sex in the lead.

I'd prefer that this be presented in human context, because that's the context for most readers and most incoming links. no we shouldn’t, did you even pay attention to what I said, this article is about sex across various species. Humans aren’t even special anyway, from a evolutionary standpoint we are merely just primates.

I don't really care what sources get used (as long as they're reliable). I don't really care what the definitions are (as long as they're verifiable and DUE).

Did you read the context matters I shown you, reliability is about context, I’m surprised you don’t understand why the sources you provided aren’t reliable.CycoMa (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure, let's talk about CONTEXTMATTERS, since you seem to be interested in it. Here's what it says:

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

Let's take it point by point:

• Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.
  • Notice that it says that the source has to be compared to the statement being made, and to make sure that it's appropriate for the content of that specific statement – not whether it's appropriate for the article.
• In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.
  • Med school textbooks are considered some of the most fact-checked, legally-analyzed, and writing-scrutinized of all sources that get cited on Wikipedia, so that's obviously okay.
• Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible.
  • It's not information provided in passing, so we're clear there, too. It's definitely related to the principal topic of the publication. NB "the publication", not "the Wikipedia article". This means that if you want to write a sentence about the definition of biological sex in humans, then you get a source that talks about biological sex, and not one that mostly talks about a politician, or a non-profit organization, or a consumer gadget. This is a medical school textbook talking about how to diagnose situations related to biological sex, so we're clear on that point, too.
• Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.
  • This means that you don't make stuff up, or stretch a few points, or SYNTH it up from a few other things, and then pretend it's in the cited source. Since I've provided you with direct quotations, we're clear on that point, too.

So: Yes, I know what CONTEXTMATTERS means. Maybe now you do, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Look you clearly don’t understand what I’m trying to get at here. Medical professionals are not experts in biology and neither are sociologists.

Seriously it feels like I’m repeating myself here.

You said that this article is about biological sex, yet you present sources that aren’t even biology text books.

Look a medical text book may be okay for a class in medicine, but it isn’t for biology.CycoMa (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. So does MEDRS. So does WP:RS. A graduate-level textbook is a reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Like you are talking about biological sex in humans when this article has been talking about biological sex in various species from all animals, plants, and fungi.

Adding a definition exclusive to humans is technically undue weight to this article.CycoMa (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Excluding humans, when so many sources talk about nothing except humans, is what would be "technically undue weight". The definition of due weight is talking a lot about something if the sources talk a lot about it, and talking a little bit about it if the sources talk a little bit about it. The definition of undue weight is not treating every species equally. See WP:GEVAL for the prohibition on treating every aspect equally when the sources talk more about one than the others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Like WhatamIdoing answer me this question, this article is about biological sex? Am I right on that?

If you want articles for anatomical sex or chromosomal sex. Make them, but that isn’t appropriate here. Because some species don’t even have sex chromosomes or genetic sex determination.CycoMa (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Anatomical sex and chromosomal sex are parts of biological sex.

Whether this article is "about biological sex" depends on whether "biological aspects of sexual reproduction" means something different to you than "biological sex". If you consider the meaning of biological sex in the question, "What is this baby's biological sex?", then that has a lot to do with anatomical and chromosomal sex, but it's just a narrow piece in the overall subject of biological aspects of sexual reproduction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Buddy it’s inappropriate to go in depth on stuff like that here. Some males don’t have penises, some species don’t have sex chromosomes at all. If you want some this information included put it somewhere else. Also there are two sources that kind of address why classifying biological sex by anatomy is problematic. Not to mention some of the claims in those sources are undue weight to the claims presented in this article. Notice the contradictions.CycoMa (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm "ma'am", not "buddy". The definition of biological sex in humans very concisely and directly (not just "kind of") explained why defining biological sex by anatomy alone is problematic. Now that you've removed that brief explanation, the article does not clearly communicate this information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

[Here’s a free version](Copyvio link removed) of one of the sources presented in this article. It communicates a decent idea why classify by chromosomes or anatomy is problematic.

Here is another one.CycoMa (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Although two reliable sources do indeed define sex by phenotype.CycoMa (talk) 06:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Here’s another source that gives an idea on what male and female are.CycoMa (talk) 06:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing at least look at the links I am providing here. Before making judgment.CycoMa (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay let’s be slow on this.CycoMa (talk) 06:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Also me removing that one source was supported by another user here.CycoMa (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I’m gonna this bold so people understand what I’m trying to say. I am not saying we shouldn’t cite medical sources at all. All I am saying, is that aren’t the most ideal sources regarding this article.

Source a source discussing a sexual disorder would be okay. But, if you want a source for evolution I would prefer a textbook in biology class.

But, anyway I’m not sure the claims in those sources you provided are due weight or know everything in the topic at hand.(To be fair that’s every source.) CycoMa (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Just in case I’m throwing [this source] out just in case.CycoMa (talk) 07:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Also regarding me removing that sentence that claimed sex was determined by five factors. That second source didn’t claim it was determined by five factors either, just clarifying that detail.CycoMa (talk) 07:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Also by the way there is a difference between sex determination and biological sex. Let’s not confuse the two.CycoMa (talk) 07:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• I do not accept that these criticisms of a reliable source are valid because I've seen no evidence that they come from anyone with a PhD is Source Evaluation and Quality Assessment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

MPants at work do you not realize how the sources she presented contradict each other?CycoMa (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa They do not contradict each other, and I do not find any argument you have put forth here to be even remotely compelling. Your editing in this topic strikes me as being motivated by a desire to conform our articles to your own views, rather than a desire to improve our articles, regardless of whether such improvements support your views. Note that this is not just based on this instance, but upon prior instances of you appearing on noticeboards and on the talk pages of related topics.

I can't and won't speak to your motivations, here. But I can and will advise you to stop, take a moment, and ask yourself why you are giving this impression to other editors. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

MPants at work answer me this quick question, is this article about biological sex? If it is why are you getting on to me for stating that biology sources are preferred for an article like this, like you are just making accusations here.CycoMa (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Because you're drawing a false distinction between "biology sources" and "medical sources" that doesn't exist for our purposes, except in your mind.

Now go answer the question I posed you. I'm not responding to walls of text posted instead of directly addressing my comments. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

MPants at work I never said I we shouldn’t use medical sources in general, another user named Crossroads He supported the source I removed. What I am trying to say is that medical sources and biological sources are clearly not the same thing. I mean I cited a few medical sources in here too. Like you guys are misunderstanding what I am trying to say on the matter.CycoMa (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

You are still not answering my question. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

MPants at work okay you asked why I am giving an impression to other editors. Are you talking the impression of me being biased? Just asking to make sure I completely understand your question.CycoMa (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Ask yourself why multiple other editors feel that you are engaged in a motivated to change what Wikipedia says to match your own views. Answer that question. You don't need to tell me the answer, but you do need to stop pinging me, and it would be helpful to your own case if you were to stop posting walls of text and multiple responses to everyone arguing with you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Look all I want to do is to make sure information presented here on Wikipedia is reliable. I mean why do you think I go to Wikiprojects and Noticeboards on this a lot. Because I want information to be reliable. If a lot of editors said that the source I presented was unreliable I don’t cite it and just move on.

Also as I said before some of the things I removed or changed, some of these changes had no controversy. Like no one had issues with me removing this source. When I removed it there was no controversy.

Not to mention there are certain things I remove that I’m not even proud of removing, like I didn’t like removing this source, like I felt kind of guilty for removing in general. Yes I will admit I was very biased in the past but, I’m more neutral regarding this topic. So please don’t assume I’m changing things to fit my worldview.CycoMa (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, there's no "multiple other editors" that I see. Please assume good faith. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads I have a grasp on what he is talking about, let’s just say I had a few interactions with him regarding this topic. And honestly at this point I think I’m used to people saying that about me.CycoMa (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, see Special:Diff/1033301093#Activists/propaganda and WP:FTN#To amuse you both of which are about this exact discussion, and you might also note that I've been discussing the ways CycoMa's editing comes across to others, not accusing them of POV pushing. And I happen to know that you've come across others saying some very similar things. So... Please assume good faith.

CycoMa, please tone it down a couple notches. You write very long comments, respond multiple times to individual edits, and your tone at talk frequently seems to be agitated, as if the state of our articles personally offends you.

I'm not making assumptions about your frame of mind or your beliefs, because much (not all, but enough that "POV pusher" is not my preferred conclusion) of your actual article space edits which I've looked at seem pretty good, and I can't read your emotional state from here. But the impression is given, and as you've no doubt noticed from your reception at RSN and other noticeboards, it's not just one or two of us who've gotten that impression.

It all makes it difficult for others to engage with you. All I've asked is for you to write fewer, shorter comments in discussions like this, so we can deal with one thing at a time. I can see from your editing history that you tend to have a pretty narrow focus and tend to stay at one article for a while before moving on, but most of us are active on multiple articles at a time, and can't follow a discussion with multiple replies to our every comment and a half-dozen points on every issue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

MPants at work what do you mean by my article space edits? I never heard anyone use that term.CycoMa (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Namespace. MPants was complimenting your your edits to articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention earlier editors on this page had no issue with certain changes I made. I mean Crossroads supported the removal of the claim that sex in humans is determined by five factors.CycoMa (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Let help you understand the issues with the sources she presented.

One of her sources said this. While we tend to think of sex as a binary (either male or female) determined by looking at a baby's genitals, the evidence shows that sex is determined by multiple biological factors including chromosomes, hormones, gonads and secondary sex characteristics, as well as external genitalia. ... It is important to remember that sex and gender are two different things: a child or young person's biological sex may be different from their gender identity.[1]

However, this reliable source says this on the matter says this. Sex is a biological concept. Asexual reproduction (cloning) is routine in microorganisms and some plants, but most vertebrates and all mammals have 2 distinct sexes. Even single-cell organisms have “mating types” to facilitate sexual reproduction. Only cells belonging to different mating types can fuse together to reproduce sexually (2, 3). Sexual reproduction allows for exchange of genetic information and promotes genetic diversity. The classical biological definition of the 2 sexes is that females have ovaries and make larger female gametes (eggs), whereas males have testes and make smaller male gametes (sperm); the 2 gametes fertilize to form the zygote, which has the potential to become a new individual. The advantage of this simple definition is first that it can be applied universally to any species of sexually reproducing organism. Second, it is a bedrock concept of evolution, because selection of traits may differ in the 2 sexes. Thirdly, the definition can be extended to the ovaries and testes, and in this way the categories—female and male—can be applied also to individuals who have gonads but do not make gametes... Biological sex is dichotomous because of the different roles of each sex in reproduction. For scientific research, it is important to define biological sex and distinguish it from other meanings.

Do you not realize how this is a clear contradiction, I mean good lord. CycoMa (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Also if feels like none of you are even trying to listen to what I’m trying to say here. Y’all are fully aware this article is about about biological sex but, apparently activist sources from non-biologists is appropriate.CycoMa (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLUDGEON. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay everyone I went to Wikiproject Medicine and they said that medical sources are fine. So I guess some of the sources WhatamIdoing are fine for this article. Medical sources are okay for this article, but let’s see if all of them are okay.

Maybe a subsection on Sex differences in medicine would be nice for this article.CycoMa (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

But anyway I still don’t think all the sources she is presenting are ideal for an article like this. Some of the sources may be better somewhere else on a different article.CycoMa (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. Properly cited peer-reviewed observations from medical scientists published in legitimate publications have as much right to be included here as publications from biologists (whatever the definition of that is these days). Some of the medics I know have had a longer and more rigorous education in organismal biology than many biologists, many of whom major in DNA. Please don't try to perpetuate prejudice between scientists here. Biology is a huge topic, and there is no such thing today as a biologist who is an expert in the entire subject. We are all specialists of one kind or another, and it essential for proper understanding and consensus that there is no class or topic warring. Plantsurfer 19:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I guess your right some topics are very broad especially the topic for this article.CycoMa (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC) But as I said before the sources that she is presenting contradict the sources presented here, I mean look at the definition of biological sex here and look at the definition she is presenting.CycoMa (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC) Maybe we could add a section that gives some clarification to all this.CycoMa (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me - I do broadly support your view that these articles must support the scientific facts, but I don't give a monkey's what kind of scientist established the facts, and I urge you not to focus on that either. It is arrogant of us as wiki editors to be making value judgements about which journal or book publisher can be regarded as a reliable source and checking whether the author had a PhD or not. That is not our job. Much better that we evaluate whether the facts as reported are consistent with scientific consensus or not. Plantsurfer 19:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

What exactly is "the definition of biological sex here"? I do not see any sentence in this article that sounds like "Biological sex is..."

Also, I think you'll find it more functional to consider differences in emphasis, rather than trying to declare that some of the sources are "wrong" or "contradictory". Consider this: You quote a source that says "all mammals have 2 distinct sexes". This is basically true. Also, no matter how long you wait, a pack of Mules won't ever produce any mule babies. Quite a number of the ones that you'd have guessed were male produce no gametes at all. Others don't produce functional gametes. We could conclude from this reality that the source is "wrong", but I think it would be more relevant to say that the source is incomplete. It's only talking about what matters in evolutionary terms, which is only one part of the story. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess some of these sources have some use here, like some of the psychology sources may be useful in sex differences in behavior, or the medical sources may be useful in a subject about sex differences in medicine.

But some of the sources she presented appear to belong somewhere else.

Like, I don’t see much use in the sociological sources she presented, I think those may belong somewhere else maybe at sex and gender distinction or they maybe better at an article like gender.

Just gonna throw this detail but sources like [1], [2], [4], and [5] are clearly talking about sex determination. If you like you could put those sources in sex determination or XY sex-determination system.

With regards to this argument, Also, no matter how long you wait, a pack of Mules won't ever produce any mule babies. Quite a number of the ones that you'd have guessed were male produce no gametes at all. Others don't produce functional gametes.

What exactly is "the definition of biological sex here"? I do not see any sentence in this article that sounds like "Biological sex is..."

Um did you pay attention to these sentences. Also I presented a source that kind of addresses that point. sogamy is very common in unicellular organisms while anisogamy is common in multicellular organisms.[10] An individual that produces exclusively large gametes is female, and one that produces exclusively small gametes is male.[38][4][39] An individual that produces both types of gametes is a hermaphrodite.[5] Some hermaphrodites, particularly hermaphroditic plants, are able to self-fertilize and produce offspring on their own, without a second organism.[40]

Y’all are assuming I am saying we shouldn’t use these sources in general but what I’m really am saying is that belong in better places than here.

I’m sorry if I am coming off as being repetitive. I’m just making sure people are reading what I’m saying.CycoMa (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa, you've quoted a source that says (correctly) that whether an organism is male or female depends on gamete size. What does your source say about the sex of a mammal that does not produce any gametes? Does it not exist? Is it neither male nor female nor hermaphroditic? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe we can have little sections for medical sources for this article.CycoMa (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Or we could add a section that gives definitions of sex from various fields in academia.

At this point I’m just throwing stuff out there to help please everyone.CycoMa (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I think we probably want a section on sexing. "Sex determination" in this context usually means the biological process by which an individual organism develops a male or female body (or doesn't develop, in the case of various medical conditions). What's missing from the article is a section on "determining the sex", i.e., figuring out whether this specific organism already is male or female. Such a section could easily include examples from plants (e.g., people usually want to plant male Ginkgo biloba trees, because the seeds produced by the female trees stink, so you need to know how to tell which is which. @Plantsurfer might have a better suggestion), birds (can be difficult but is economically important to the chicken industry), and humans. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Cannabis is probably the best example of a plant where humans have an interest in determining sex. Plantdrew (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe a section giving clarification on how to properly identify an organism’s sex could work. And maybe clarification why different fields clarify them that way could work.CycoMa (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa, what do you think would be a good section heading? Maybe ==Identifying an individual's sex==? ==Determining the sex==? ==Sex identification==? (That might be too easily confused with Gender identification.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Well there is an article on sexing. Maybe a subjection on sexing is fine with a main article tag to sexing.

Regarding medical sources we could create a subsection in sex differences section leading the the article on Sex differences in medicine.CycoMa (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I've started the section, and put one simple sentence in it at Sex#Sexing. Would you like to have a go at expanding it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe I have some sources on sexing. So you don’t have too.CycoMa (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• WhatamIdoing, some of what you are talking about may belong more at sex assignment or elsewhere. Additionally, several of your sources are really not focused on sex or biology in and of itself. And this is a biology article (medicine is within biology broadly construed; however this article should not give undue weight to humans, which medicine is focused on). One of your sources is about intersex people, another about transgender people, and some of them were in psychology. I see no good reason to use sources that are not general biology sources to define the topic when there are countless biology sources doing so. There is a high risk of cherry picking there, and of getting unusual non-mainstream definitions that way. One of your sources, which is about performance enhancing drugs (!), even speaks of sex as a "spectrum", which is nonsense because sex is categorical, not continuous. That source confuses traits that vary with sex as sex itself. Such a source is WP:UNDUE. With hormones, for instance, a male animal with low testosterone is still male, not female. As for organisms that don't produce gametes, sex can still be determined by matching its phenotype or by genotype with the one that typically produces a certain gamete. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I think we have a ways to go before this article places undue weight on humans, assuming you mean undue in the policy sense. Given how much has been published about sex in humans, the article is looking a little light on the topic. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we could put some of these sources in articles like Sex differences in humans.(seriously that article needs sources.)

Or Sex differences in human physiology.

Some sources are more ideal in other places.CycoMa (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Each article should be comprehensive. It's likely that some of this information needs to be in multiple articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Arbitrary break

WhatamIdoing I will just say this there are some views that are considered fringe and should be excluded from Wikipedia.

Like the case with me removing the claim sex in humans was determined by five factors. Another reason I removed was because I couldn’t find any other sources that made any similar claim. I mean not even other sources in sociology claimed that.

Also I do believe some of the sources you presented may be confused on the matter. Like this source says.

Sex determination exists on a spectrum, with genitals, chromosomes, gonads, and hormones all playing a role. Technically speaking genitals aren’t part of sex determination they are actually part of sexual differentiation.CycoMa (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The term "sex determination" refers to two different things:

• how the body develops, and
• how someone figures out whether a body developed this way or that way.

Which of these two different things is that source talking about? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

This kind of addresses the difference between sex determination and sexual differentiation.

Sex determination is often distinct from sex differentiation, sex determination is the designation for the development stage towards either male or female while sex differentiation is the pathway towards the development of the phenotype.CycoMa (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Seriously why did it auto correct to this kind. What I met to say was this article addresses the difference between sexual differentiation and sex determination.CycoMa (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

If you go to Sex determination (disambiguation), there are two main section headings.

One is ==Development of an organism's sex==, and it includes:

• A sex-determination system, a biological system that directs the development of sexual characteristics in an organism
• Sex determination and differentiation (human)
• Sexual differentiation, the development of sexual characteristics in humans

The other is ==Discernment of an organism's sex==, and it includes:

• Prenatal sex discernment, prenatal testing for the discernment of the fetal sex in humans
• Sex assignment, the discernment of an infant's sex at birth
• Sexing, used by biologists and agricultural workers to discern the sex of livestock or other animals

What I'm telling you is that there's plenty of information about the first section and not nearly enough information about the second section.

Do you understand what content I think is missing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

By the way the article already links to sex assignment in the see also section, not sure having a section of sex assignment is appropriate for an article like this. We already made a section on sexing. Also with regards to Prenatal sex discernment maybe we could place that in see also section.

Back to the sex determination and sexual differentiation thing. The two are connected but are different.

[This source] and [this one] might give an explanation on the difference.CycoMa (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

We just started a section on the discernment of an organism's sex, and it currently contains two (2) sentences. That is not enough. There should be multiple paragraphs, and maybe even separate ===subsections=== for major categories (e.g., one for sexing plants, one for birds and other non-human animals, and a third for humans). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep in mind sexing is it’s own article. Unfortunately the article on sexing is ridiculously short and probably needs expansion.CycoMa (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

That article probably does need expansion.

All of these things have their own articles. This article needs a proper WP:SUMMARY of all these related topics. Not two sentences, not a link in the ==See also== section – a complete and proper summary, so that anyone who shows up at this page learns the basics (e.g., "it's not just a matter of looking at external genitals") and knows which articles to go to find more information (e.g., this article if you want to know more about how farmers discern the sex of chicks but that article if you want more about how doctors discern the sex of humans). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Multiple subsections is too much. How to determine an organism's sex is a small part of this topic, especially regarding humans. There also should not be undue weight on the activist-favored but confusing phrase "sex assigned at birth", as it is not arbitrarily "assigned", and it is nowadays typically detected before birth. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

We haven't yet managed to get past a single paragraph, so I don't think we need to worry about it being too much yet.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, what data are you relying on when you say sex "is nowadays typically detected before birth"? Wikipedia is a WP:GLOBAL website, an American or European perspective is not appropriate, and your claim seems unlikely. UNICEF produce statistics on access to antenatal care, which is described as a recommended 4 visits for "blood pressure measurement", "urine testing for bacteriuria and proteinuria", "blood testing to detect syphilis and severe anaemia" and "weight/height measurement (optional)", where "Most pregnant women access skilled antenatal care at least once, but globally, only 60 per cent receive four antenatal care visits". UNICEF (2021). "Antenatal care". UNICEF DATA. Retrieved 2021-07-24. Trankuility (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Even when sex is assigned before birth, it may have been done using an ultrasound and visual identification of the genitals. I do see frequent use of "assigned sex" without the "at birth". I'm willing to bet five hours of fixing links to disambiguation pages at WP:DPL that most people currently on Earth have been assigned their sex based on anatomy and not gametes. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers That comment isn’t really helpful for the article. Also look at source number 3 and read the quote. If it is accepted by convenient then arguing against that is going against WP:RS/AC academic consensus.CycoMa (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

This is one of those situations where I am not saying anything even close to what you think I'm saying. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps my statement of "most" didn't account for poor countries, but my point stands that sex isn't something "assigned" at birth because it can be detected before birth. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

"Sex assigned at birth" is not an activist-favored but confusing phrase - it is the phrase favored by recent, reliable sources for the activity it describes (involving humans); it is the standard term in medical, sociological and social work, demographic, and legal sources as well as those specializing in sex and gender, Newimpartial (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, an assignment based on a prenatal ultrasound is still an assignment. It doesn't suddenly become "detection", af least, not according to the reliable sources on the topic. Newimpartial (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I don’t assigned sex fits an article like this in general.CycoMa (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial assigned sex in itself is subjective. Not to mention sex assignment is in the see also what else do you want?CycoMa (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I was not asking for the use of the term to be expanded; I was simply responding to Crossroads. And yes, sex assignment is subjective to some extent - that is precisely the reality the term was created to recognize. Sex is assigned to humans subjectively. Which answers your musing, I don't see how assigned sex fits in an article like this in general - most of the readers of this article will be humans, and how sex works in humans (including how it is assigned to individuals) is likely to be important to the article's readers. If most of the readers were, say, lice or lizards, we might need to adjust the focus accordingly to emphasize different cases. Newimpartial (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I don’t understand how you think bringing up the readers being humans is gonna help anything. Look down below this article is classified as an article with objective content.

Plus the main focus of this article has always been about sex from various species. Look at older versions of this article.CycoMa (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

If you don't think human readers often come to this article to read about sex in humans, or if you believe that activities (assignment) that objectively occur but are based on subjective assessments are somehow not of interest to those readers, I don't know what to tell you. Evaluating reliable, "objective" sources about subjective actions is one of the main things editors are called on to do on WP, and the idea that we can remove such content from articles (because IDONTLIKEIT?) is pretty clearly contrary to policy. Newimpartial (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you aware that there is a difference between reliable and objective. I mean belief. In god is subjective but there are tons of reliable sources that mention where the belief in god originated from and other it affects cultures.

It’s just undue weight to go into full detail about sex in humans. From an evolutionary and biological perspective humans are merely just mammals or more specifically we are just primates. And that is an objective fact.CycoMa (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Certain aspects of this article's topic, such as sex assignment, are unique to humans.The sources on these aspects of the topic are no less objective (no more based on particular POV) than sources on other aspects. And some of our readers, as humans, are naturally interested in aspects specific to humans. It would not be DUE to exclude then, and you have provided no reason to do so except your own POV. Newimpartial (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Here’s the thing about that things like sex determination is basically the same in all mammals. It’s unusual to argue that sex in humans is determined by five factors and say that it isn’t in other mammal species. (Although in fruit flys XY sex determination is different than mammals.) Also it would contradictory to mention that “sex in humans is assigned” and mention that humans have XY sex determination.

Also what’s up with this whole “my POV” nonsense. When I told you assigned sex is subjective, you straight admitted it was subjective as well. Humans being considered mammals is objective, that’s common sense at this point I mean seriously they teach that kind of stuff in elementary school.CycoMa (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa, Wikipedia is full of topics (including most historical and social topics) that include objective phenomena - sex assignment happens to babies, an atomic weapon was dropped on Hiroshima - but where the activity described is ineluctably subjective. It is the responsibility of WP editors to write about them objectively (that is, with NPOV) based On the reliable sources. The idea that Wikipedia should include purportedly non-subjective statements like "humans are considered mammals" while excluding objective statements about subjective processes, like "infants are assigned male or female in infancy", is what I am referring to as your own POV. There is simply no basis for this in WP policy; it is just what you would personally prefer. And if you can't tell the difference between the biological process of sex determination and the societal activity of sex assignment for humans, then perhaps you should be more careful to edit within your area of competence. Newimpartial (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You said there is a difference between biological and societal. This article is not about the sociological or the societal interpretation of the matter, it never once was. Neutral point of view does not mean we should treat fringe views like they are legit arguments, NPOV does it mean “we should use sources that don’t have any knowledge on a certain topic.” Like if I was editing an article on history I would use sources by historians or archeologists, I wouldn’t cite a technician as a source.

Many editors on this article have said stated this article is about sex across various species. There is nothing unique or special about about humans, claiming otherwise is merely a religious view.CycoMa (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I am aware that you and other WP:OWNers of this article insist on limiting its scope to biology, but that has not consistently been true of the article over time, and isn't policy-compliant. And I am not claiming anything unique or special about humans except that they are capable of certain cognitive operations, such as reading and interpreting our articles. One corollary of that is that human readers are often interested in aspects of topics that are specific to humans, such as sex assignment. Your attempt to contort the topic of this article so that it only includes what humans have in common with other mammals embodies an almost Stalinist anti-humanism, at least as I see it. Newimpartial (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I told you earlier sex assignment is linked in the also see section. If readers want to know about sex assignment then they can click on that link and go there.

Also I’m not being a Stalinist or anti-humanist I’m merely being a realist.CycoMa (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Insisting, as you have, that humans are ... just primates. And that is an objective fact, without acknowledging that humans are also the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia's readers is not being a realist. It is being a pedant, unwilling to recognize the relevance of context. Newimpartial (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Also I don’t understand why you call me and other editors owners. This article has been about the biological perspective of the topic way before me and many of us had accounts. I’m merely just expanding what editors years had started. Also there are reliable sources that have established that sex is biological and gender is sociological. If sex is biological, biology sources are top priority.CycoMa (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Helpfully, the last part of that comment largely answers the I don't understand statement in the first part. The desire to narrow the topic of the article based on a personal understanding of its appropriate scope is a perfect example of WP:OWN in action. Just because sex is a topic in biology doesn't mean that it is only a topic for biologists, particularly for humans; demographers for example have to operationalize sex as well as gender in the field. Hiroshima was an atomic explosion, but it wasn't only a topic for nuclear physicists, and the same is true for Sex and biologists. Newimpartial (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

There is an article on Human sex ratio and this page links to that article. This article also links to sex and gender distinction.CycoMa (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You have been pushing hard for months to make this article reflect only a small subset of biology, and to exclude information about the biological aspects of sex assignment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

> assigned sex is subjective

I don't think this is true.

Let's being with a dictionary definition of the word subjective:

• Formed, as in opinions, based upon a person's feelings or intuition, not upon observation or reasoning; coming more from within the observer than from observations of the external environment.

Or these, from Merriam–Webster:

• peculiar [i.e., "characteristic of only one person, group, or thing"] to a particular individual: personal subjective judgments
• modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background: a subjective account of the incident
• arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes: a subjective symptom of disease

Does anyone here actually think that when a baby is born, the sex is assigned on a basis other than "observation or reasoning"? That the decision to say "It's a girl!" is comes "more from within the observer than from observations of the external environment" (i.e., from observations about the baby appearance)? Is it characteristic of only the individual person, or affected by the midwife's personal history, so whether a healthy baby gets assigned as male or female is just as likely to correspond with reality as a teenager trying to explain that he's always right and his brother causes all the problems? Do we assign the baby's sex based on how we're perceiving ourselves?

Of course not. Therefore, sex assignment isn't subjective. The fact that some people have disorders of sex development does not make sex assignment be subjective. Sex assignment always involves observation and reasoning. It may occasionally be incorrect, and there are times when the correct biological assignment is known to be "none of the above" but a form requires an "M" or "F", and therefore a known-incorrect assignment will be named in the documentation. But that doesn't mean that the sex assignment was subjective. We should not make such claims. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you chose the "dictionary definitions" you included above, but I was drawing on the meanings of "subjective" reflected in Merriam-Webster's 3 a), characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind and 4 a) 2, modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background. Sex assignment is a subjective process in which sex is perceived, recorded and communicated, and the processes used to do so are specified by social structures and culture. The process of sex assignment - according to the reliable sources - is subjective in these senses, though it is not subjective in the sense of being lacking in reality or substance or peculiar to a particular individual, which are also listed in Merriam-Webster.

That said, I wasn't proposing to add a comment on this subjective aspect in the article; it was just part of my argument long conversation with CycoMa Newimpartial (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing I didn’t remove the mention of sex assignment in the see also section. There was no mention or section about assigned sex in this article before I started editing this page. If I was POV pushing I would have removed the mention of sex assignment ages ago.

Also small subset of biology. I have been including the majority view on this topic for ages.CycoMa (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

No. You have been including a narrow slice of the mainstream views for ages. You have been actively removing and complaining any time anyone tries to include other mainstream, majority views of sex, e.g., that there are ways to determine an animal's sex that don't involve looking at the gametes with a microscope. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing for the record I didn’t include the mention that sex is defined by gamete type. I looked at older versions of this article, the oldest version of this article used Anne Fausto-Sterling’s definition of biological sex. But then editors many years ago changed it to make it say male and female are defined by gamete size.

The article also originally mentioned that most animals have two sexes. I expanded on that concept by mentioning animals can be gonochoric, trioecy, androdioecy, or gynodioecy.

All I did was expand on these concepts.

Not to mention I merely told you earlier that the sources you presented are confused on subjects.

Like the first source you presented acts like the definition of sex, genitals, and sex determination are the same thing. When they aren’t.

Also I read the second source you presented. The author of the book Sex Itself also mentions that gamete size is the definition of biological sex.

So don’t make statements that I’m going against majority views here.CycoMa (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

On [page 26] the author mentions that anisogamy is central to the biological definition of sex.CycoMa (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Next month I hope to go back, undo and revise much of the same subject narrowing that has occurred on the pages intersex and hermaphrodite. Trankuility (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Not related to this article but, okay you do that.CycoMa (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussions here, the Fringe Theories notice board, the 5α reductase deficiency talk page and elsewhere are providing useful insights, in preparation. Trankuility (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Tell me what kind of "personal views, experience, or background" would cause a person to look at a healthy baby (i.e., one born without a disorder of sex development), see a penis, and say "It's a girl!" If your answer is "none", then it's not subjective according to that definition.

Or perhaps tell me how, in that circumstance, the baby's assigned sex would merely be "perceived" without having an independent basis in physical reality?

There are subjective things: A trauma victim may "perceive" a threat where others don't. But the perceptions are about interpretation, not about checking off various facts and totting up the numbers. If you have amniocentesis results that found 46,XY, or the external genitalia has a penis, "it's a boy" is an objective statement, not a subjective one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The only thing your example shows is that some situations are easier to evaluate (using culturally and socially-specific criteria, i.e., "personal experience and background") than others. I am a philosophical realist - I believe there is an independent reality that contains, e.g., genetic code. But the vast majority of the time, we don't make sex assignment based on actually knowing the genetic code for a specific individual. Rather, we do so based on perceptions filtered through culturally-specific rules (including perceptions of anatomy, which do not disclose chromosomal sex with 100% accuracy, as I believe you know). Newimpartial (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

"Some situations" - meaning the 99.98% of situations when there are no genital abnormalities. [8][9] 'Not knowing the genetic code' isn't really accurate - the information in the genes is expressed as a phenotype which human senses in turn detect. A karyotyping is another way of obtaining genetic information, but is only rarely needed, because the accuracy of unaided senses is already extremely high. As for "culturally-specific rules"? Every known culture "assigns" sex in the exact same way for the 99.98% of the population who lack ambiguous genitals at birth, which is actually an extreme degree of cultural unity for something. (Note that third genders are not assigned at birth and are usually sex specific.) A more accurate description is that the vast, overwhelming majority of people would be "assigned" the same way in every culture. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Every known culture "assigns" sex in the exact same way for the 99.98% of the population who lack ambiguous genitals at birth - this sounds like something that needs to be sourced rather than baldly stated, both the 0.02% ambiguity and the assumption that all cultures assign sex with equal "accuracy", regardless of their access to scientific knowledge or modern technology. My knowledge of Western history would suggest that 2 anomalous assignments per 10,000 births seems ridiculously low for pre-1800 conditions. Newimpartial (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I did provide sources for the 0.02% occurrence rate. The burden of proof lies with you if you are suggesting there could be a culture that does not consider babies with penises to be males and babies with vulvas to be females, as is simply the case for the 99.98%. If one existed I am sure I would have read something about it by now. I am unaware of any medical reason for DSDs to have been more common pre-1800, so 2 anomalies per 10,000 would have held back then as well. Some authors would like people to draw grandiose philosophical conclusions on the basis of the 2 rather than the 9,998, so they generally are not clear about these rates. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not suggesting any alternative interpretafions of infant penises, and am aware of the estimates of anomalous genitals at 2 to 5 per 10,000. But that figure does not account for other intersex conditions that manifest later in life, many of which also imply "anomalies" in terms of sex assignment (e.g., people with Y chromosomes being assigned female and people without Y chromosomes being assigned male, based on infant anatomy). Newimpartial (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

For the purpose of this article, it doesn't matter if the assigned sex matches the chromosomal sex, because the biologist's definition of "sex" is "gametes produced", not "chromosomes possessed."

The process of figuring out whether an individual is likely to produce the big gametes or the small gametes is something that I believe this article should address. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, this was a tedious wall of text to wade through, and I'd like the half hour I spent doing so back. (At least one user above could stand to read WP:BLUDGEON, based on this and other talk pages I've seen their walls of text on.) I share many of the concerns OP started this thread with. PS @Trankuility, I'm glad to see you around again; your knowledge and edits, on intersex topics in particular, have been sorely missed and missing of late. -sche (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Sex differences in behaviour

I think this section is weak and in my view unencyclopedic as it stands. There is weasel phrasing, a total lack of tangible examples and statements that clearly state that there is controversy about aspects of this topic. WP should not be dealing with speculative issues. If there is no substantial consensus then, even if a source can be identified, we should not be covering it here. This is an encyclopedia, not a science blog or discussion group. Plantsurfer 19:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's problematic enough that I'm removing the section pending discussion. I haven't reviewed all the sources but the very first statement ("flirty") did not pass verification. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

This is true of the third claim (that women are choosy about mating due to their large gametes) as well. I checked the source, and it never mentions such a thing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: You beat me to removing the section before I could remind everyone that "This article is about sex in sexually reproducing organisms. Sex is a trait that determines an individual's reproductive function, male or female, in animals and plants that propagate their species through sexual reproduction." --Kent Dominic·(talk) 14:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

let me quote it. For some reason various versions of that book don't have page numbers. The one I read from my local library had page numbers tho. In this book it says.

One reason women are often more choosy about mates stems from the most basic fact of reproductive biology-the biological definition of sex. Males are defined as the ones with small sex cells, females as the ones with large sex cells. Maybe you and I aren't interpreting what it says the same way.CycoMa (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

No, that's fine then. Due to the lack of page numbers, I was searching for "gamete" and only found one page, which didn't mention a behavioral aspect. I didn't see that passage until you linked to it.

One thing is sure, per WP:NPOV and the various gender-related elements of the culture war, we need to be very careful about this section. I think re-writing it as a collaborative effort here is a good idea. If we go too far in one direction, we'll have every MGTOW and anti-feminist posting ridiculous edit requests here non-stop. If we go too far in the other direction, we'll be spewing bullshit.

We also need to avoid any evo-psych sources, even though they talk about this subject a lot, as they're just this side of pseudoscience, and well short of the bar of "reliable science" that we want for writing encyclopedic content. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I guess you are right we should be careful. Like I have heard evolutionary physiology has been criticized a lot. I looked at the criticism section for Evolutionary psychology, and oh my lord I have never seen a criticism section so long before. I mean there is even an entire Wikipedia article on the Criticism of evolutionary psychology. But I'm not entirely sure it should be avoided at all.

Maybe a better idea is to check on what Behavioral ecology sources say on the matter of differences in behavior between the sexes.CycoMa (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The Evolution of Desire is old-school evo-psych, FYI. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Shit, you're right. So it's verifiable, but written by the guy whose "field of science" is built on the laughable postulates that humans could not possibly have evolved intelligence.

No wonder it seemed fishy to me. I'd exclude it for now, and see if that sort of claim is found in actual biological/genetics/behavioral-eco sources.

CycoMa Yes, Behavioral Ecology is perfectly fine. It's the real science version of evo-psych. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what "the laughable postulates that humans could not possibly have evolved intelligence" means. Evolutionary psychology doesn't deny that humans evolved intelligence. You're also overstating the criticism evolutionary psychology receives. It does get criticized for sure, but, from the meta-perspective we are supposed to aim for as editors, it isn't 'not real science' as you are implying, because we can't declare particular schools of thought within a scientific field to be bad in favor of others. I recommend Sense and Nonsense: Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behaviour as an overview. (If you just mean that you personally don't think it's scientific, then that's obviously fine; I personally am critical of parts of evolutionary psychology myself and lean towards human behavioral ecology and gene-culture coevolution for quite a bit, but I try not talk about my own views.) I agree that the best way to sidestep that whole issue is not to use sources specifically about humans in this general article. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology doesn't deny that humans evolved intelligence. It's partially based on the axiom that the human brain is comprised entirely of a wide variety of highly specialized neuronal structures, specially adapted to a specific mental task. Not only is this demonstrably untrue (see Prefrontal synthesis), but researchers outside of the field have demonstrated repeatedly that this is in conflict with the widely-observed facts that evolution tends to favor specialization and the human brain is highly adaptable. Hell, that's such a broadly-accepted principle of evolution that there are even kid's educational cartoons structured around it. When modeled in an evolutionary simulation, this axiom has never produced the highly generalized neuronal structure that characterizes human brains, because evolution simply doesn't work that way.

The fact that it ignores that conclusion is also a negative mark. It's hard to take a "science" seriously when it can't even model itself on a logical framework.

You're also overstating the criticism evolutionary psychology receives. That is hardly possible in such short comments as I have made. I'd have to write a 10,000 page book to even stand a chance of doing that.

but, from the meta-perspective we are supposed to aim for as editors, it isn't 'not real science' as you are implying, Yes, it is. I wouldn't call it a pseudoscience, but it's certainly not up to snuff with established science. It's not taken seriously by virtually anyone outside the field, so we should not takes it's conclusions about anything seriously. It's made predictions which are wildly at odds with observation, to such an extent that their basic model of human psychology has been falsified for some time. Proponents present this as evidence that it's still a developing field, and while it may yet become a real science as it adjusts itself to better fit observations and abandons foundational axioms that don't produce workable predictions, and it is taken seriously by it's proponents who make genuine efforts to do their worth methodologically, it's no-where near the level of trustworthiness of established science at present.

The fact that there's such a strong overlap between the subset of psychometricians who endorse scientific racism and evo-psych is another red flag.

We can document it all we want, but we should never rely on publications from squarely within it's bailiwick for claims of fact. Work from around the edges of it (where it meets up with with behavioral-eco, established psychology, neurology and genetics) are frequently of a much higher quality than pure evo-psych works, and may prove useful as sources, though they're generally not ideal, as they come laden with the baggage of evo-psych's failings as a science. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I personally think it’s okay to have a section on sex differences in behavior.

I understand removing the controversial stuff in a way. But there are sources that have argued this for a longtime.

I do kind of agree with you about the lack of examples. Like for some reason the sources say that males are more competitive for mating but don’t give examples for this. Like are they saying that male animals do this and not male plants or are they saying all males across species do this?

I’m gonna save the section in my sandbox and see if I can work on it and fix it up a bit.CycoMa (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The section as previously written mainly contained vague references only applicable to human sexual behaviour. That is the topic of another article, Human sexual activity, and we are trying to make this article about Biological Sex. I am not denying that there are such things as differences in sexual behaviour. The annals of natural history are full of descriptions of it - male fish and birds build elaborate nests to attract mates: flightless vapourer moth females sit quiet and pump out pheromones to attract winged males with huge antennae, etc. There is plenty to say here without trying to explain the evolution of these behaviours, and particularly without trying to explain them in terms of human psychology. Plants are more difficult to cover, but they do have behaviours - only they do things a bit more slowly. One example from many is the flowering plant Silene noctiflora that opens its flowers only at night, for one night only, emitting a strong scent to attract pollinating insects. Another is the various plants in the family Araceae that entice files with metabolic heat and rotting meat odours, entrap them in a chamber full of female stigmas until they have pollinated them, then release them via anthers shedding pollen which the flies vector to other flowers, thus achieving cross pollination from hermaphroditic flowers. The variety is almost endless. Plantsurfer 22:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Very well said. I agree (as I hinted at, above) that any such section in this article should be focused on the broad variety of observed behavioral difference across various kingdoms, and not focused on human difference, because here there be dragons. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

(I’m currently on mobile phone so I can’t properly place my comments) MjolnirPants with regards to things about evolutionary psychology. There are some reliable sources outside of the field that align with other biology sources.

For example there are many reliable sources that mention females are the more choosy sex across species.(Not all of them argue it’s due to anisogamy tho. And keep in mind in recent years there is controversy over this view.)CycoMa (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Could you explain further? I'm not sure I understand what you mean. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay here what’s sources on topic say. [this source] says In most species, females are choosier when picking a mate than males.

[this source] that females are choosy.

So females being the more choosy sex isn’t just a view in evolutionary psychology. Like you said earlier there is a “culture war” on the topic of sex and gender. This is why it’s hard to edit on articles relating to this topic.CycoMa (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

To start with, the first source's "most species" really means "most animals". Also, the focus isn't on gamete size; it's on direct reproductive risks and the cost of caring for the young. In other words, most female animals may be choosier because of correlations with pregnancy and childcare, not because of egg size (cf. seahorses).

Also: "choosy" is not the same as "flirty". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing just for clarification I’m not saying females are choosy because of gamete size. My point was that the whole view that females are typically more choosy.(at least in animals) isn’t a view exclusive to evolutionary physiology. Also I don’t remember claiming flirty and choosy are the same thing. Not to mention in recent years the view that males and females differ in behavior has some controversy.CycoMa (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You aren't claiming this, but you're the one who added that claim to the article? Every time you put words and a source in an article, you are claiming that the words you use faithfully represent what the source said. In this case, you cited a source that talks about mate selection strategies, and you claimed that it said that most females were "flirty". You cited a source that said most females are choosy due to pregnancy and childcare, and you claimed that it said this was "due to their large gametes".

Don't make claims like that, and especially don't tell me that you're not making these claims in the article when we can easily prove that you did. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Other editors said that claim problematic and I kind of agree with them on that. Nonetheless there are reliable sources that claim females are more choosy for whom to mate with. That’s not something I made up nor did I add because I have an agenda.CycoMa (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say that you made up the part about females being choosy. I said you made up the claim about females being flirty and that the choosiness was due to gamete size. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The claim that females are flirty was from Darwin.CycoMa (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Please provide a citation. I can't find one that says that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I’m thinking about moving mixed breeding system

I’m thinking about deleting the sub section on mixed breeding system and moving it over to the article sexual system.CycoMa (talk) 04:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I would not oppose that. It is a scrappy section as it stands, little more than a list of random facts. While you're at it, it is inappropriate to have the section Breeding Systems leading the body of the article. Breeding systems is a secondary topic, not the main topic of the article, so it is putting the cart before the horse.Plantsurfer 10:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Honestly the reason I put mixed breeding system in there is because I was concerned there would no other place to put all that info and I though there was only 5 sexual systems at first. But, when doing more research there were a lot more than that. Luckily I created an article for sexual systems.CycoMa (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m probably gonna move the evolution of sex determination

Don’t get me wrong the evolution of sex determination has some important to the evolution of sex but the subsection has issues.

First, it focuses too much on XY and ZW sex determination.

Second, it technically isn’t related to the subject.

Third, the article on sex determination has a section on the evolution of sex chromosomes. I’m probably gonna move it.CycoMa (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Go for it. Happy to take a look once you've made the move. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the evolution of sex

As I started doing more research on the topic. It became more obvious that there is a lot more to the evolution of male and female.

Although a lot of sources do indeed say stuff like the evolution of anisogamy is the evolution of male and female function. And tons of sources have stated that.

It’s a lot more complex than that. Like dioecy, gonochorism, and hermaphroditism evolved in various ways across species which is why I have linked to so many articles. To be fair evolution is a complex topic in itself.CycoMa (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Also by the way the new source I included is from Joan Roughgarden. Yes I know her views on sexual selection are fringe and I’m not arguing otherwise however, the source I cited from her mentions nothing about sexual selection so don’t remove it just because it’s written by her.CycoMa (talk) 07:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually come to think of it sexual conflict is considered a form of sexual selection.CycoMa (talk) 07:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m gonna add onto a sex differences section

I’m gonna add onto the sex differences section because too many articles on sex differences only think about humans.CycoMa (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Sexual reproduction with male and female

I’m bringing this because I keep seeing the mention that asexual organisms aren’t males or females.

That’s not technically correct. Hermaphrodites are both male and female, and many of them reproduce asexually.

There are also species with only females that reproduce asexually.CycoMa (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually never mind on the claim with hermaphrodites. Hermaphrodites actually self fertilize not reproduce asexually.CycoMa (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa That statement is false on both counts. Not all hermaphrodites are self-fertile, and many hermaphroditic plants also reproduce asexually. Plantsurfer 14:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah but, anyway I changed that section to reproduction because there are species with both asexual and sexual reproduction.

Also question about asexual hermaphroditic plants. Do they exclusively reproduce asexually or reproduce both?CycoMa (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

asexual hermaphroditic is clearly an oxymoron. Plants using all systems of sexual reproduction may reproduce asexually by a variety of different methods, e.g. bulbs, bulbils, runners, rhizomes to produce clonal populations. see Asexual reproduction. It is not a case of either/or but of both. Plantsurfer 15:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Plantsurfer, is this is where we want to talk about parthenogenesis? An organism that reproduces by parthenogenesis is female (because it produces an egg), but it's asexual because no other individual makes a genetic contribution to the offspring. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing yup that’s one reason I changed that section to reproduction. Because there are species that are exclusively female and don’t have males.CycoMa (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing Yes, it should be mentioned here, but not developed in depth, since there is already a comprehensive article. Plantsurfer 10:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa In most species capable of reproducing by parthenogenesis the process is facultative, i.e. males also occur and can fertilize eggs. Many examples among social insects. We would need some examples of species and higher taxa that reproduce exclusively by parthenogenesis, and an indication of the proportion of species capable of parthenogenesis in which there are no males at all. Also, in such species, is the "egg cell" actually a gamete - i.e. produced by meiosis or not. Plantsurfer 10:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Plantsurfer, whiptail lizards are everyone's favorite example of obligate parthenogenesis. I don't know if there are any plants that are obligates, but there are plenty that are facultative. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Certainly there are plenty of plants that do something like parthenogenesis, but there is a difference here from animals because the relevant cells are not those of the sporophyte but those of the gametophyte, which of course does not exist in animals. Botanists therefore use the term Apomixis rather than parthenogenesis. There are plants that are completely obligately apomictic, and some are derived from close relatives that are completely sexual. If you enter the term "obligate apomixis" into Google Search you will be provided with a number of examples. Plantsurfer 16:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

So both Parthenogenesis and Apomixis need to get a sentence and an example in this article. Are obligate apomictic plants defined as being female? (That's the convention in animals.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes I'd say so. If you need an example of an obligate apomict that applies to almost the entire genus of Hieracium. Stace 4 states (slightly edited): "All the taxa are obligate apomicts and are triploids with 2n=27 or tetraploids with 2n=36 so far as is known, except for the pentaploid H. pentaploideum and the single species of section Hieracioides (H. umbellatum) which exists as diploid sexual plants with 2n-18 and triploid apomictic plants with 2n=27".(Stace 4 p.758) In Pilosella there are both apomicts and fully sexual individuals, often in the same species, and hybridisation between species is possible where they co-occur.(Stace 4 p.756) The source is already cited in the article. Plantsurfer 17:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Sex differences in behavior as sandbox material

There are multiple issues with this section:

• "Females tend to invest more {more what?} in their offspring."
• Repetitive, equivocal use of "some," e.g. "in some species, such as some coucals, the males invest more parental care."
• Ungrammatical sentence; weasel wording: "Females also tend to be {WP:WEASELWORDS} more choosy {non-encyclopedic wording} for who {ungrammatical} they mate with {ungrammatical}."
• "This is case {ungrammatical; non-WP:NPOV} for bird species and most other {WP:WEASELWORDS; WP:UNDUE} animals."
• The entire section is superfluous to the articles on Sex differences in psychology, Animal sexual behaviour, and Non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 22:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kent Dominic, the answer to your first question is "more energy". You can think of it as "raw calories" as a first approximation. Producing larger gametes requires a small amount of extra energy, but it's really child-bearing (energy + health risks) and child-caring (energy) that makes the biggest difference for this calculation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

So you say, and that sounds fair enough. The existing wording however, is elliptical and leaves open such interpretations as more care, more interest, more time, or even more money since the sentence topically relates to gonochoric species. Someone (maybe it was @Crossroads:) said the section appears not to relate primarily to humans. Yet, the subject in this sentence is "females," including humans, so the presumption that human females tend to invest more (of whatever) is a nonfactual overreach despite whether any of us agree or disagree that it's true. Adding a source isn't pertinent to the point of avoiding offhanded generalizations. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 03:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The claim that females invest more is present in many sources. Also that claim is mostly an average than a general rule.CycoMa (talk) 03:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

To some extent there is going to be generalizations. Biology comes with plenty of exceptions, but they are exceptions, and we can't hold back from saying what is the case in most species. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Please edit the article to indicate more whatever it is that females supposedly invest. More energy? More biological content in an egg versus a gamete? More physiological expenditure in producing zygotes than it takes to disseminate gametes? What?! --Kent Dominic·(talk) 06:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

That’s what makes biology a unique topic there is always exceptions. Although some exceptions aren’t stable.

Like there are cases where a species has more than two gamete types. However, this is always evolutionary unstable.CycoMa (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa Name an example of a species with more than two gamete types.Plantsurfer 12:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I have heard two biologists like Joan Roughgarden and Malin Ah-King claim that Chlamydomonas euchlora have like 64 gamete types. Although I can’t find much information on Chlamydomonas euchlora.CycoMa (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

There aren't 64 gamete types. The progenitor cell might divide more or fewer times, resulting in from (usually) 16, 32, or 64 cells of the same size. Although I don't know about C. euchlora specifically, most Chlamydomonas algae's sexual reproduction is isogamous, meaning that there isn't male or female, although there might be an arbitrarily assigned mating type for research purposes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I didn’t trust their claim on that anyway. I believe those two scientists I mentioned might have misread some reports.CycoMa (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Sex characteristics as sandbox material

There are multiple issues with this section:

• Mistaken syntax: "Organs directly involved in reproduction such as the testes or ovaries {corresponds to 'organs,' not 'reproduction'} while secondary sex characteristics in humans for example are body hair, breasts, and distribution of fat {corresponds to 'characteristics,' not 'humans'}."
• Lack of specificity:

1. "In some species, {which?} a few individuals may have a mixture of characteristics from both sexes, a condition called intersex."

2. "The term intersex typically applies to abnormal {hormonally abnormal?} members of gonochoric species rather than to hermaphroditic species."

3. "Some species, such as the fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster), and some crustaceans {which?} may have gynandromorphs (also known as sexual mosaics)."{Clarification needed.}

• The entire section is superfluous to the article on Sexual characteristics. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 22:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that #1 ("In some species") is wrong. It is more likely that disorders of sex development exist in all species, and the cited source does not limit the statement to only some species. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing intersex doesn’t really occur in sequential hermaphroditism the same way it does in gonochoric species.CycoMa (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

No species is completely immune from mutations; therefore, no species is completely immune from mutations that affect sex development. The idea that a species using sequential hermaphroditism would be unable to have a sex development disorder would be a truly WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying no species is immune to mutations. What in trying to say is that intersexuality varies from species and in some cases doesn't occur. For example all Clownfish are born male and later on change their sex to female. Sure clownfish may have sexual disorders. But Clownfish don't get thing like ambiguous genitalia and since they don't have sex chromosomes there is no clown fish equivalent to Klinefelter syndrome or Turner syndrome.CycoMa (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

You don't have to have a sex chromosome to have a DSD or to end up with ambiguous genitalia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

True, maybe theirs a clownfish equivalent to MRKH and I guess clownfish could get some kind of gonadal dysgenesis.CycoMa (talk) 05:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "superfluous sections", we should summarize what other articles related to sex say, or should say, per WP:Summary style. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Concise summaries: Yes. Haphazard and easily avoidable grammar errors: No. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 06:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Mention of sexual systems in the lead

I think sexual system should be mentioned in the lead. What do other editors think?CycoMa (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like it's mentioned in many of the sources, so it would be undue weight. --Equivamp - talk 05:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Ditto Equivamp. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 07:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Alright I won’t put it in the lead.CycoMa (talk) 07:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Biological sex

This article needs a sentence that mentions biological sex (which redirects here) and differentiates it from Psychological sex and Brain Sex. It might be useful to also mention the other concepts: genetic sex, chromosomal sex, hormonal sex, (external) genital sex (which is the old-fashioned method of assigning a baby's sex at birth), anatomical sex, morphological sex (which is about secondary sex characteristics), social sex (more or less an older term for gender role and expression), and probably several others. I think the older term for the main subject of this article is "germinal sex", because it's about which gametes you produce.

I think we should include this because several of these terms redirect here, and because one quality that makes an encyclopedia article valuable and educational is explaining what the subject is not. The subject of this article, in particular, is neither the psychological nor the social sex of any human. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I do see sources mention stuff like anatomical sex, genetic sex, or brain sex. But, I’m not entirely what we can do with all that to be honest.

Like the brain sex for example is difficult because some sources would basically say sex differences in the brain are merely averages. Some even argue there is no male or female brain.CycoMa (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Come to think of it is chromosomal sex widely used? I did a quick Google search and couldn’t find much on chromosomal sex.CycoMa (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Also just gonna throw this out because of past discussions on this articles. Don't worry I'll try my best to communicate with y'all and be civil. Also this is a warning this discussion is probably gonna take a lot of time so be prepared to be in this discussion for days.CycoMa (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

"Psychological sex" and "social sex" are terms for gender and any such information belongs there, and should clarify that "gender" is the commonly used term for that. This article is not focused on humans, and an organism's sex is not determined by psychological or social factors. As for "genetic" and the like, any material added should be from sources that are not about just one species of primate, and should not obfuscate the mainstream biological definition of sex, per WP:DUE. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2021

I would like to correct a few MINOR mistakes. - Regards Hughyuu (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Oops misread a source

I misread a source in the evolution section. The source was actually arguing that it's unclear if anisogamy first led to evolution of gonochorism or hermaphroditism. My mistake.CycoMa (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Biased twist makes for rethorical nonsense as in not sensible?

Hi

Im only partaking in this discussion sporadically. My intention was to bring something to attention (a fresh pair of eyes sort of thing). If it is of meaning, I dont know since im not familiar with Wikipedia mechanics

Quote: All pair bonded primates are sexually monomorphic,[118]

What the quote states: All in the class "pair bonded" are sexually monomorphic by defenition. Thats what "pair bonded" means. Emphasizing that a subclass in "pair bonded" that is "all of the pair bonded primates" dosent contribute any rational meaning. It simply states that a subclass of this class is in this class.

Trying to interpret what was intended of stateing: Maybe im reading to much into it but I read it as a way of emphasizing something without support for it? Maybe a mistake?

What to do?: Either way shouldnt it be corrected by perhaps elaboration, etc or else erased?

Off topic thought: Out of curiosity since this sort of mishaps in most litterature on and off line and in verbal discussioms is common, do you have a plan, idea or notion of what to do about it? It makes up the bulk of most discussions and is rarely as far as I can see sinister but.. why? Im not saying that everything has to be effective (although sometimes im affected by that "perversion") im trying to say that it tare at the social glue and depletes fuel beacuase discussing then feels like arguing or fighting and nothing good comes out of it, to heck with it, I dont bother. ?

/Johan Johan157256 (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Johan157256: I believe pair bonded in a nutshell means monogamous.CycoMa (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

But any @Johan157256: You titled this section with bias. But, I am a little confused on what you consider biased in this article?CycoMa (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Johan157256 You may be conflating the words monogamous and monomorphic. Pair bonded may mean monogamous, but the article does not state that pair bonded means monomorphic. It states that there is a tendency in that direction, and explains that the tendency is the consequence of low intensity of sexual selection (Individuals are pair bonded, so sexual competition is low). Plantsurfer 19:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Include intersex, disorder of sex development and other influences on sex development

I would like to suggest adding a general section for intersex and disorder of sex development and reference other influences that can change sex development, as the article only mentions the standard chromosomes. Since sex is already being defined by some researchers as a spectrum and I would want to make that clear in this article.

Though, since I know this is a major article, I wanted to start a discussion to hear what others say to that, and how perhaps I can add that somewhere LunaKlatzer (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@LunaKlatzer: here’s the issue with that sex spectrum argument. They usually rely on DSDs/intersex conditions.

Theses are classified as disorders, even intersex activists are aware they are disorders.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand that, and well, in that case, I can understand that not being good for adding in. Still, with current research, we know that chromosomes are not a definite factor for defining sex development and I still feel the article does not consider most of the other genes and effects that influence sex development. Since, even as a disorder, there are differences that can occur and I think it would be good to at least reference them. Since at the moment it's fully centred around male XY and female XX, and does not even include most normal chromosome variations, like XYY or XXX. So, my point is not now changing everything to be defined as a spectrum (as research is still going on and it's an ongoing discussion in biology), but adding the information in those articles, it's not as definite as the phrasing makes it out to be. LunaKlatzer (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@LunaKlatzer: here’s another issue with that. That argument only thinks about humans. Terms like male and female aren’t exclusive to humans, there are species out that don’t even have sex chromosomes and can be classified as male or female.

Also I’m not sure what sources you read but I saw the sources you added to the article on XY determination which make similar claims.CycoMa1 (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Let’s just say some of those sources you added to the XY sex determination article aren’t reliable.CycoMa1 (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, yes it only considers humans, as I wanted to primarily highlight intersex and DSD conditions. Though if this isn't the right place, sorry ^^" Though my point still stands regarding the addition of intersex conditions and DSDs. Since also intersex itself is not classified as a disorder, just DSDs which lead to one being intersex. So I would still say it's fair to include intersex and reference it when talking about human chromosomes, as there are also other factors causing DSDs. Since it's still a significant portion of the population and assuming it is a spectrum seems to be fair, as our current definition of intersex is someone who has a different sex development or condition than the binary norms for male and female. To that, there is ongoing research in this area and even if one of my sources was not credible or reliable enough, I would say nature.com is a good journal: https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a So I feel it is really fair to include intersex and DSD conditions on human sex development, as intersex individuals still make up a significant portion of the world-wide population (https://www.intersexequality.com/how-common-is-intersex-in-humans/). To that, there even is a current proposal in Australia to completely redefine sex to be a spectrum to also include intersex individuals: https://www.uow.edu.au/media/2021/anatomy-texts-should-show-sex-as-a-spectrum-to-include-intersex-people.php So I feel it would be good to add that, even if the research is quite recent and its an ongoing discussion. Though, if this is not the correct page for that, then I am really sorry ^^" I can move it somewhere else, where it is more specific on humans, if that would work better. Otherwise, I can really just create an completely new article talking about the idea and differentiation to the binary system LunaKlatzer (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@LunaKlatzer: Regarding the definition of intersex you mentioned. There’s actually no consensus on the definition of intersex. The article on Intersex addresses this. Your third source is aware individuals with XXY have Klinefelter syndrome. The word syndrome is used for disorders.

the second source you provided is not a reliable source in the context of medicine or biology.

The author for the first source said [this on Twitter.] So Claire Ainsworth isn’t really defending your argument.

Also I don’t think making a new article would be ideal. Also I feel like you are misunderstanding my point when I brought up that it only thinks about humans.CycoMa1 (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I see, thank you for sharing that ^^ And well, regarding the disorder point, I didn't say it's not a disorder, though my point was it should still for clarification be included, so it is known intersex and outside conditions exist. Though thank you for showing me that twitter post, I read through some things and I think I myself misinterpreted the intention and message they wanted to make. In that case, I would drop my argument for adding specifically a section for the sex spectrum with intersex and conditions in-between, as their point is a spectrum within the binaries and intersex and DSD being outside the binary as a special condition/exception (Though I would still say it's fair to call the range of DSD condition a spectrum between two sides of binaries, where many different disorders and differences can occur). I still would consider adding intersex and DSD as notes to sections talking about chromosomes, as it still seems important to me, to clarify on differences that can occur and intersex being its own form of sex. Though, well, if you believe that I misunderstood your point, I am open to clarifications ^^ LunaKlatzer (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Though as a question, may I know the sources you find to be not reliable? (Of the other article) So I can avoid using those again LunaKlatzer (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Should CycoMa1’s edits be reverted?

This editor has been banned from medical topics per WP:CIR. Since this is one of the most popular articles of all time, should their edits be reverted? The reason I’m asking is because 50% of the article is their contributions, going back DEEP in history. It’s practically impossible to provide a diff for this, but for a before-after comparison see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sex&oldid=936224859 (the last edit with zero contribs from them)

Cheerio, Dronebogus (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Yikes, that's quite a large number. Perhaps it would be better to go section by section? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The present version is shocking. I am a professional in plant reproductive biology and have a number of degrees in the subject, including a PhD. The previous version Dronebogus listed above is okay. I would revert to it as the last good version... however, I don't edit in my subject and will leave that up to you guys. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree. I have sensed that there is something wrong with CycoMa's contributions, but being no expert in biology I have let them be. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

It is possible to provide an objective answer how much they have contributed by Wikiwho, see xtools, which shows that CycoMa1 is author of about half of the article's current content. I agree given the popularity of the article that a thorough review and/or mass removal of CycoMa1's additions is warranted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Though it's more work, I'd advise against a rollback. The diff linked above is two years old, and there have been other contributors than CycoMa1 since then. I'd suggest a section by section copy-edit, though that will take longer it would preserve the work of other editors as well as ensuring that relevant and updated information in the last two years is also present. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The vast, vast majority of the content has been contributed by CycoMa1 though. It might be easier rollbacking and then selectively adding content added over that time by other contributors back in. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I support that. This is kind of an emergency situation, considering the article’s importance and popularity. Dronebogus (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I reverted tgeorgescu's two-year rollback, so I suppose I owe some contribution to this discussion. I have my own concerns about this article's current version, most of which are expressed in now-archived sections that went nowhere, in part because of CycoMa1. I know that experienced and expert editors have been turned off of this page because of ugly, overlong, needlessly contentious disputes, and their reasonable attempts at improving the article are absent or stunted.

If someone finds BMI-related content that is unsourced, poorly-sourced, or incorrect, I urge immediate removal. For other issues, I can't support indiscriminate rollback without some discussion of the issues. If consensus develops for it in the next couple days, and someone is wiling to take on the work of rollback and restoration of all non-CycoMa1 edits, I won't stand in the way (and will help out if I can). Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 23:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

If we retain any of CycoMa1's edits, they also need to be checked for copyright violations. Some of his edits (a minority) have been copy/paste of sources or rephrasing by changing a couple of words. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I support Firefangledfeathers approach. A blanket reversion to a two-year old version would be discriminatory and indiscriminate. Not all CycoMa's contributions were nonsense, and several other editors made valid contributions in that time. However justified we may feel in our indignation about CycoMa's edits, and trust me, my analysts fees are mounting, it is important that we do not over-react, and that statements in the article that are contentious, POV, poorly or inappropriately cited or obvious synthesis should be dealt with individually according to the usual WP rules.Plantsurfer 23:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I also oppose rollback. This is a highly watched article and his contributions here were scrutinized by other editors, many of them having been discussed or refined in the page history or on the talk page. If there are particular bits and pieces with issues, then delete or tag those. This 'smash it all' approach is way too heavy handed and destructive of the work of numerous other editors in the intervening time, who worked to verify, refine, or otherwise improve the text.

As for copyright, can't automated tools detect violations? Just give it a pass with that if it makes anyone feel better; however, I looked at a lot of his contributions here as they were happening and they seemed to not have that sort of issue. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I also oppose a rollback I agree with the points that Crossroads made.CycoMa1 (talk) 13:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

As for copyright, can't automated tools detect violations? ← not very well. Alexbrn (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I've just removed on absolutely blatant copyright violation. [10] I'm not sure of policy, but it may even be a requirement to rollback (and revdel) such material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I would point out that CycoMa1 was not responsible for the copyvio of the Sex ratio section. His crime, if any, was to decide that section was better placed in Sex than in its original location, Sexual reproduction. He moved the text on 17 June 2021. The section was in fact created in Sexual reproduction by RichardWeiss on 5 July 2015. Plantsurfer 17:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

An for the avoidance of further doubt, I should point out that contributors are responsible for the content of their own edits. Even when they are copy-pasted from other Wikipedia articles. The text in question wasn't written by Fisher, it was written by W.D. Hamilton, as should be self-evident from the source cited. A source which any competent contributor would surely have at least glanced at before copy-pasting. (and no, citing the source something is copied from doesn't legitimise copyright violation, before anyone asks). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC

Why are you even bringing up who wrote the source? It’s obvious the person who created the copyvio clearly knew it wasn’t made by Fisher. So you bringing who wrote what adds really nothing to the discussion.CycoMa1 (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste any more of my time arguing with you. Please leave this discussion to people who understand Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Buddy an admin said it was alright for me to join the discussion so I see no reason to join in.CycoMa1 (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

But anyway, regarding the copyright violation. As Plantsurfer stated I didn’t create the copyvio.

It was originally on sexual reproduction, it was on that article for years, and it was created by RichardWeiss. User:RichardWeiss is obviously an experienced editor.

Do you honestly expect me to analyze an entire section that’s been made by an experienced editor and has remained unchanged on an article for years?CycoMa1 (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

No, revdel is not required here. Per WP:CRD, Revdel can be used for blatant copyvios that can be redacted without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors. If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used. --Equivamp - talk 18:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you may possibly be misinterpreting WP:CRD. Yes, ...this criterion cannot be used. Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at WP:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion. Which reads to me as an instruction that if it is complicated (e.g. by intervening edits), the procedures described at WP:Copyright problems need to be followed. It isn't an instruction to do nothing, at least as I understand it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the instructions on that page do not list alternate criteria for revdel, and the options aren't merely "revdel" vs "do nothing". --Equivamp - talk 19:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

As for copyright, can't automated tools detect violations? even in academia, detecting plagiarism or copyright violations isn't fully accurate when using automated tools. While websites like turnitin are popular, they still pale in comparison to an experienced assessor in all but blatant word-for-word copy/paste jobs. There's a reason why WP:SPCP doesn't have any suggested services for this sort of detection, beyond reverse Google Image searching or TinEye. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm very willing to accept that there's some rule or whatever I don't know about, but shouldn't CycoMa1 be notified or tagged so they know about this? --Xurizuri (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

They know. I made a thread at FRINGEN that they replied to and then removed their response after being advised to do so by PaleoNeonate at their talkpage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Yup, I have reverted them, I was also reverted, but I don't take this personally: it is about WP:Verifiable knowledge, not about my own person. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I asked an admin he said it was alright to comment on this page.CycoMa1 (talk) 13:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@CycoMa1, FWIW: I did tell you that a t-ban was a big frickin' deal and that broadly construed could be interpreted to mean things you didn't want it to mean and that instead of arguing about another editor you should be discussing the interpretation of your tban. You didn't do that. I'm not sure why you didn't listen to me, but here we are: you are likely to get yourself into trouble. valereee (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: honestly I panicked back there and didn’t know what to do. I didn’t attempt to defend myself and I sorta just let the topic ban just happen honestly.CycoMa1 (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@CycoMa1, the idea that "panic" would mean "ignore advice" is very troubling. If that's where you naturally go, you probably aren't a good candidate for working here. valereee (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: sorry misread what you said there.CycoMa1 (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

My instincts as a Wikipedian told me that CycoMa1 and Karma1998 won't be great editors. For a while, I thought that my instincts were wrong, and that they have integrated into the Wikipedia Community. But Karma1998 has quit editing, and CycoMa1 has received a topic ban. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: um Karma1998 still edits here. Just look at his contributions.CycoMa1 (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@CycoMa1: I saw. But his user page still displays the "Retired" header. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: we are getting off topic but I believe he just forgot to change it.CycoMa1 (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@CycoMa1: Basically, being a good editor means being aware of the fields one is not good at. Knowing what we don't know, but others do. So, I don't pretend to be a very good editor in biology: I just stick to basic stuff and avoid editing stuff which requires in-depth knowledge of biology. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I know that’s why before I was topic banned from medical articles. I submitted medical drafts through AfC.

Plus I spend so much of my free time researching the biology of sexual reproduction. I don’t have a PhD or anything but I have a decent knowledge on it. Like most people don’t know what gonochorism or trioecy is or means.CycoMa1 (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@CycoMa1: The sweet spot is people between a Bachelor's and a PhD: if they have a PhD they will likely produce incomprehensible prose. If they are not at the Bachelor's level, they lack an understanding of the field, so they may well find WP:RS, but lack WP:CIR of interpreting those WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Review

Section 1: Reproduction

Doesn't seem to be clearly organised, lots of random examples included without much context. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the version mentioned above seems to be better in that regard. XOR'easter (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)