Talk:Sex/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Will this source do?

I’m sure if I should add this in as a source or not.

Any thoughts?

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Encyclopedia_of_Evolutionary_Biology/_r4OCAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Sex%20of%20organism

Or what about this source?

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Selfish_Gene/ekonDAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=SexCycoMa (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The sources are reliable, but it's hard to comment further because I don't know what you'll be citing to them. Be sure it matches what the source says. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Do stop adding sources just to add them. Do you read any guideline, policy or essay pages you are pointed to? I've pointed you to WP:Citation overkill before. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:Citation overkill said. “Two or three may be preferred”. I didn’t think adding one more was gonna be a problem. CycoMa (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It states, "Two or three may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources." You have been adding additional citations for straightforward, non-controversial material (to more than one article). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Isogamy and sexes

There are sources out there that mention isogamous species have thousands of sexes.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5031617/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7062084/

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1987.tb05770.

I’m mentioning this in the talk section first to make sure no has a problem with me adding it in. CycoMa (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Those sources appear to call those "mating types" (the third link didn't work); that these types constitute sexes seems to be a popular misconception. This matter also appears to be addressed in the article already (under Fungi). Crossroads ^-talk- 01:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Edits on intersex

I have noticed some people trying to make reverts or some edit wars over intersex in this article.

I’m made some fix ups here. (Edited my comment, it was honestly a little stupid and was merely just me rambling.)

Also sources that talk about intersex are mostly talking about organisms that have both male and CycoMa (talk) 04:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

A lot of the above, as usual, is just your personal commentary. No, the term intersex, which is mainly used to refer to humans, is nowhere close to "falling out of fashion." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

More stated here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t say I was done editing these articles I said I was taking a break from editing these articles. Also the reason I added DSDs is because intersex is also controversial. So I added both terms. It’s not my place to say which one is true or false.

Also there are sources that say recently DSDs has been decided to replace intersex.

I also edited that specific paragraph because it was just straight up misleading. Like seriously intermediate development.

CycoMa (talk) 05:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that you prefer the term disorders of sex development. But anyway, intersex is the standard term for people who are, well, intersex. And if it can be called a controversial term, it's not nearly as controversial as disorders of sex development. Furthermore, non-human animals usually are not stated to have disorders of sex development. The Disorders of sex development article is not about any organism. It's about humans.

Anyway, as you have seen by now, Crossroads removed the term and tweaked the text. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I must confess I’m not sure why I added disorders of sex development and I’m not 100% sure why I added this comment in the first place. It was honestly not a good idea of me, so sorry about that.

The reason I added both was because I have seen reliable sources one or the other. I have also seen sources that use DSDs with animals.

So I’m honestly glad Crossroad edited that. CycoMa (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

CycoMa, read the WP:Talk guideline about changing your posts. You should not make an edit like this again. It messes up the whole thread. Yes, you stated, "Edited my comment, it was honestly a little stupid and was merely just me rambling." But you still should not have edited this section in that way. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Alright CycoMa (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2020

--2409:4053:2E06:81ED:4456:ED38:5298:3114 (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

2409:4053:2E06:81ED:4456:ED38:5298:3114 (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2020 (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. GreenComputer (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Needs better source

I noticed that the lead cited an oxford dictionary. I don't think that's the best source.

Also I noticed someone removed my sources I added even. Can someone explain why because the sources I added were written by biologists with PHDs. CycoMa (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh wait nevermind, the sources I added are still there it’s just they were moved around.CycoMa (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Plans on new section

I think we should add a new section about sexual systems (don’t know the name.) In this section we mention systems like dioecy, Trioecy, and Androdioecy.

I’m thinking about adding a section about these but, I can’t find many sources on this. I don’t even know these are called sexual systems or not.CycoMa (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

change to lead definition

I was dumbfounded by the lead definition's focus on "organisms" rather than "sex," and I'd already drafted an amended definition based on the cited reference before I saw the editing note regarding "mentioning the male and female aspect in the first sentence," which was my intended draft does. Yet, I hadn't seen the editing note asking for discussion here before making the corresponding change. So, this is my tacit adherence to that request. Please hurry with your comments, as I intend to post the edit momentarily with nary an apology for the edit itself. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 14:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that was not an improvement. And defining a category by naming its members is not a great idea. "Sex is a category in which some organisms are classified into..." would be better, IMO, but any change needs to be decided upon here first. Newimpartial (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: I don't rightly see how "Sex is a category in which some organisms are classified into..." substantially differs from "Sex refers to either of two main categories..." as cited. Not that it matters much if original research is disregarded. Heads or tails, either one is an improvement re. what's currently published AFAIC. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 15:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

"Sex" is the name of the domain of categorization; it does not refer to the specific categories themselves. Newimpartial (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: What you said = ipse dixit. "Sex" is, contextually speaking, however we define it. Point being, for my tastes, "Sex is..." or "Sex refers to..." is the proper way to start an article about biological sex. "Organisms of many species are..." is an epically bad, if not hilariously outrageous, sort of circumlocution, non-relevance, or wiggle-worm-verbiage as an introduction to such an article. Waite Stevensen defines biological sex as a category. Citing him, it IS a category. As I alluded before, publish your own original research elsewhere and, since it would be 99.9% guaranteed to be better than the one currently in the article, I'll gladly substitute it (and aptly cite it) for the one that's now here. Off the top of my head, other palatable original research definitions that could fly re a lead definition biological sex:

• "Sex refers to either a male or female individual within a given species." (Singular approach)
• "Sex refers to either male or female individuals within a given species." (Collect approach)
• "Sex is a category that relates to male or female populations within a given species." (Taxonomic, collective approach.)
• "Sex refers to the manner in which male and female individuals are biologically categorized within a given species of organisms, including humans."

Like it or not, practically speaking, census data, ID forms, air and sea port customs documents (etc.) request a statement asserting one's sex, given a singular bifurcation of one's biological genetic makeup. The notion of gender has attenuated such assertions from a societal perspective, but not a biological one. No one asks a mule for its gender. Its biological sex category, by contrast, is largely a matter of "this ♀ if not that ♂." Obviously there are outlier cases that don't fit that paradigm, but that's discussed late in the article, I hope. I can't swear if that's true because I haven't read beyond the article's lead paragraph since my sole concern is the semantic sufficiency of the opening definition. In short, it's an article about biological sex, not gender, not sexual preference or practices, and certainly not a trite, non-germane statement about "organisms." --Kent Dominic·(talk) 01:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Like it or not, practically speaking, census data, ID forms, air and sea port customs documents (etc.) request a statement asserting one's sex, given a singular bifurcation of one's biological genetic makeup - this is a hilariously false generalization, so I don't see the point in continuing this discussion further. Newimpartial (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: You seem fond of ipse dixits and imprecise semantics. For the record:

1. The generalization is actual, not false. (Visit a port, ID office, or look at a census form for proof.)
2. The generalized practice, as I described it above, is (IMHO) not relevant as applied to gender, which is the more salient societal factor but a different topic, different article.
3. The practice itself is antiquated, IMHO. It persists nonetheless.
4. I agree that there may be no "point in continuing this discussion further" absent some semblance of consistency in your opinions, especially those that couched as authoritative pronouncements and seeming interpolation of "gender" instead of "(biological) sex categorization into this discussion.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not presuming to say how you should express yourself or what opinions you should favor; I'm merely saying that so far there've been too many holes in your statements and too much inattention to your manner of semantics for me to harmonize them in a way that tends to edify. Read that for what it is. And please do remember that this discussion is intended to remedy a definition (i.e., the lexical meaning) regarding (biological) sex, not about how the word itself is employed for whatever societal good or harm. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 03:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

P.S. @Newimpartial: I'll buy you some reading glasses if you can't see how, according to and properly ascribed to Waite Stevensen as cited but improperly quoted in the article, "Sex refers to either of two main categories, i.e. male and female, into which humans and most other organisms are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions." The only real issue here is whether there's consensus to include that published definition in this article's lead sentence to replace the original non-germane original research that you restored. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 04:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Kent, fuzzy surveillance algorithms are no substitute for the main version of "Sex" that is measured at ports of entry and other borders, which is Sex as a passport characteristic - a legal concept.

And if I had a dollar for each time an inexperienced Wikipedia editor tried to use a dictionary definition (and "Waite Stevenson" is nothing other than a dictionary editor) to settle a Talk page dispute - and fail - well, I'd have a few more dollars, now wouldn't I? Newimpartial (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: So now you've almost-but-not-quite tired of ipse dixits (seeing as there are only three in your most recent reply: "algorithms are no substitute...;" "main version of 'sex' ... is measured at ports...;" and "sex as a passport characteristic [is] a legal concept") but you've moved on to (1) ad hominem rationalizations (re. Waite Stevensen), to (2) argument from authority (re. Stevensen and so-called inexperienced Wikipedia editors), and (3) non sequiturs (re. having a few more dollars). For those who champion consistency in illogic and pontification, you're a hero. Apparently, that consistency doesn't extend to personal resolve. Specifically, I had you ahead with "I see no point in continuing this discussion further." I'll leave you to edit the fallacy article. That whole section on relevance needs deletion. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 21:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea why you keep prattling on about ipse dixit, but if you need "evidence" that what is measured at ports of entry and other borders, which is Sex as a passport characteristic - a legal concept, then perhaps you could stop making spurious claims like ID forms, air and sea port customs documents (etc.) request a statement asserting one's sex, given a singular bifurcation of one's biological genetic makeup and let the adults in the room discuss the topic at hand. Yes, that was logically an ad hominem, but a relevant one in this instance. Newimpartial (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial: I have no idea why you keep prattling on have harped about ipse dixit[s] …

Kent: That might be the most reasonably stated impression you’ve made in this discussion. I’ve only harped about the statements that you’ve offered as matters of fact rather than as the assertions of opinion they are. And I hope I don’t have to keep harping. I’d rather you were more prudent in your observations and wiser in your phrasing.

Newimpartial: [But] if you need "evidence" that what is measured requested at ports of entry and other borders, which is [self-identification of] Sex as a passport [demographic] characteristic - a [quasi-]legal concept [depending on the jurisdiction], then perhaps you could stop making spurious claims like ID forms, air and sea port customs documents (etc.) request a statement asserting one's sex, given a singular bifurcation of one's biological genetic makeup and let the [alleged] adults in the room discuss the topic at hand.

Kent: Try to wrap your head around what I’ve said all along, which is one and the same concerning what you seem to be arguing, albeit inarticulately, between the lines: In my view, as informed by years of legal study, legal practice and legislative drafting work, statutory consideration of “sex” and “gender” that were formerly deemed convertible terms have been eroded nearly to obsolescence. Policymakers are often inured to the traditionally bifurcated concept of sex, and their sentiment is reflected in the forms that still ask respondents to make a this-or-that assertion of sexual identity. As you no doubt have noticed, LGBQT influence has been at the forefront of invalidating heretofore assumptions about sex and gender.

Traditionalists tend to be wedded to the idea that sex is a biologically immutable fact that can be represented from a binary selection on forms, at the toilet, sports team membership, prison population assignment, and so on. Personally, I think traditionalist are mostly (but not invariably) right concerning the majority of living organisms – with exceptions including (1) human beings with fungible notions of gender, and (2) organisms with transformative haploid and diploid characteristics. Gamete science is pretty cut & dried regarding the categorization of an individual as sexually male or sexually female. That’s what this article is about. It’s not at all about whether it’s appropriate or useful to apply those general categories to people. It seems you’re rebelling against the indignity of terming “sex” a category in the first place.

Readers visit Wikipedia not for your individual outlook or for mine, but for what published works have said on the matter. Accordingly, from time immemorial, sex had been a binary category based on biological reproductive characteristics. Laws and administrative rules followed the science, and they persist to this day. Well-founded challenges to the laws and to the underlying science are ongoing, but the article isn’t an essay on the inherent shortcomings on the sex determination. This isn't an article about sex role assignment, gender roles, "male" seahorses and "female" hyenas; it’s a mere exposition of generalized sexual reproduction and sex determination. Of necessity, sex determination requires categories, taxonomies, and distribution. Right or wrong, it really is that simple. I urge you to do a Google Scholar search before attempting any rebuttal on that point.

Newimpartial: Yes, that was logically ad hominem, but a relevant one in this instance.

Kent: You’re good at oxymoron, bad jokes, cognitive incoherence, or all of the above. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 00:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The bulk of that terrible Socratic caricature consists of appeals to authority and ipse dixit, without the support of either evidence or logical argumentation. Such statements as from time immemorial, sex had been a binary category based on biological reproductive characteristics and Policymakers are often inured to the traditionally bifurcated concept of sex, and their sentiment is reflected in the forms that still ask respondents to make a this-or-that assertion of sexual identity make ungrounded assertions that are falsified by any reasonably current knowledge of philology, anthropology, history and philosophy of science, legal and political theory, medicine or psychology. I can therefore feel comfortable in ignoring your assertions, Kent, unless you begin to make grounded claims that are related to the topic of this article. And to address your (essentially irrelevant) census example, which is largely out of scope for this article, national statistical authorities are increasingly able to describe explicitly when they are asking for sex assigned at birth, or current legal sex, or current gender identity, to name only three of the available concepts. That is a lot more clarity than you have achieved in any of the meandering about gametes above, which I can guarantee you is *never* the basis for national demographic classification.Newimpartial (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: See definitions for "biological sex, from time immemorial." Nothing there defines biological sex as "Organisms of many species are specialized into ..." See Just What Are Sex and Gender, Anyway? A Call for a New Terminological Standard to remedy your misconception that legal definitions influenced outdated biological concepts about sex (now more widely construed as gender) rather than vice versa. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: my supposed misconception that legal definitions influenced outdated biological concepts about sex - literally, what? I don't recognize anything that I have written in that whatsoever.

My point about legal definitions is that in many legal systems, sex is the designation for a legal category that is sex assignment, that is contained within various forms of government documents and asked about on forms and by agents of the state, and which can be altered according to criteria specified in each administrative system. I have said literally nothing about the potential influence of this legal category on outdated biological definitions of sex as you claimed; I simply pointed out that sex as a legal category is quite distinct from the bifurcation of one's biological genetic makeup that you had been talking about. In fact, the legal category doesn't usually make any appeal to genetic markers at all. Newimpartial (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Let's back up to the point where you said, "'Sex'" that is measured at ports of entry and other borders, which is Sex as a passport characteristic - a legal concept." Before we agree or disagree on whether parts of that statement is valid, let's agree that whatever a passport designation entails is not relevant to this article, per se. IMHO, the statement is a red herring as far as a definition for this article is concerned. That's why most of what I wrote in reply is admittedly off topic but, perhaps I wrongly assumed, a matter of interest to you.

If you wanted to press the legal aspect of what a passport "sex" designation represents, however, I know you'd find that your statement is at odds both with case law (dating to time immemorial, which is a legal term of art not of my own invention) and with statutory law. Let's not try the matter here. It'd be a fruitless exercise. My only point being that what's solicited re. passports, etc. is nominally "sex" as biologists have commonly construed that notion, but which has been attenuated by modern notions of gender. Of course, that bit of original research isn't suitable for this article on sex or even the article on gender: it's just my take on the world as you're likely to to witness it for yourself just by sticking your head out the window and taking a look at how things are changing regarding sex identity versus gender identity.

Aside from all that, this article rightly steers clear of how proponents of sex assignment at birth does/doesn't affect gender identity. (I know several people who look at the "sex" check box and argue that neither category applies to their situation as they weigh notions of gender instead.) The legal rulings that have followed in the wake of such rumblings are now in a state of flux. That is a fact. By contrast, I don't know the cutting-edge state of biological theory on what sex constitutes. Will it be influenced by gender as it applies to human beings? Time will tell.

For the umpteenth time, however, my only immediate concern with this article is to ensure that its lead definition of biological sex aptly corresponds, for lexical integrity's sake, to what's been authoritatively published on the word itself so that it comports with the article on life expectancy (which had made an erroneous reference to gender in its lead paragraph, and which I subsequently amended to sex). That nexus isn't there in the "Organisms of many species..." verbiage. My recent edit here establishes that nexus and, at the very least, accords with a published source that has been vetted time and again regarding the meaning of biological sex. I'm not claiming that the source is right, only that it sensibly matches the thrust of this article. I'd be thrilled to see someone find a better source and a more cogent lead definition. Truce? --Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: My only point being that what's solicited re. passports, etc. is nominally "sex" as biologists have commonly construed that notion, but which has been attenuated by modern notions of gender. Of course, that bit of original research isn't suitable for this article on sex or even the article on gender: and I have objected to this bit of original research for being (1) hilariously false (e.g., for "air and sea port customs documents", the correct answer for a person's response to "sex" is whatever happens to be on their passport documents, and most definitely not the result of a quick genetic test, if that might differ from the "right" answer) and also (2) entirely irrelevant to how this (or any other) WP article is written. Questions about when "sex" means sex, when "sex" means gender, when "gender" means sex and when "gender" means gender are not up to the OR of WP editors to decide, but rather represent issues for the recent, reliable sources out there in the world to resolve. Let them do their job, and let us do ours. Newimpartial (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: We're basically in agreement on what you said, but I still don't get why you insist that my original research is false. My reporting on stupid existing practices doesn't falsify the truth of the report. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 02:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Not this again. This article is about biology. Not law, not sociology, not any of that. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads:Your edit summary avers that "organisms are not 'categorized' into 'characteristics,'" which is true but not relevant to the edit you reverted. Read it again: It's humans and most other organisms that are categorized (i.e. based on male or female characteristics). The sole difference in definitions relates to the semantic subject as it relates to the article's topic. Specifically, the "Organism of many species are specialized.." verbiage versus "Sex refers to..." If you think this reversion is in error, please substitute your own definition that begins with, e.g. "Sex is ..." or "Sex refers/relates to ..." so that it provides an immediate nexus to the article's topic. And you're right: This article is about biology. Not law, not sociology, not any of that. Thank @Newimpartial: for goading me into refutations of his nonrelevant diversions. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 07:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I've read all of the above and I am not seeing any specific problems with the lead sentence. In fact, it does quite a good job and don't see how it could be better. I'm seeing a lot of talk about gender, seaports, and whatnot that applies only to one species out of the entire tree of life. I find this topic is much easier to handle in terms of due weight when one takes a wider view. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I agree with the wider view approach, but I found problems with both versions, and I think it moved on again since Crossroads last wrote. Anyway, I've come up with this as a lead sentence:

• Sex is the set of characteristics that define and distinguish males and females in organisms that propagate the species through sexual reproduction.

The first part of the lead paragraph was pretty straightforward and used plain language, but then got quite technical suddenly with the discussion of gametes, so I added a paragraph break, and expanded the "plain language" of the first part by contrasting it with asexual reproduction and adding the central fact that both plants and animals use sexual reproduction, something well covered in the body but not previously mentioned in the lead, a rather big lacuna. Adjusted the beginning of the first sentence of the now second paragraph ("gametes") to smooth the segue between the two paragraphs. The rest is unchanged (except added ovules after egg cells in the parenthetical, to cover the plant case).

I wasn't sure whether we needed to clarify the use of hermaphroditic in the second paragraph to indicate it referred to "animals" only, or else expand the sentence with some technical word for plants that have both gametes, but somewhat to my surprise, it turns out that hermaphroditic is the correct word for plants also, so nothing needed to be changed there. Maybe just to be really clear, we should swap out organisms in that sentence, with plants and animals. Mathglot (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't consider the semantics in your edit to be an improvement over mine, but anything that starts with "Sex is ..." suits me better than what we had from the start. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 11:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: My (minor?) edit to your edit will let me sleep more easily. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 19:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand, I think, what you were going for here, but I find "Sex relates to <FOO>..." rather wishy-washy, as if we're either not sure, or don't know enough to make a clear statement. What I'm guessing you were motivated by (correct me if I'm wrong) is not that we can't make a clear statement, but that actually sex means several things. I would agree with that, but in that case, the right approach, imho, is to enumerate those things in some form, not to use relates to. This might be handled by appending a statement to the first paragraph in the form of, "In context bar, sex also means <BAR>, and is sometimes used as a shorthand for <BAZ>..." or some such. If we choose this approach, we'd have to ensure that the body already covers this; if it doesn't, we should add the alt meanings to the body first, possibly in #Terminology, unless it works better in its own section. (For example, do we want to add "Sex is also used as a synonym for sexual intercourse" somewhere? I'd say 'no' for this meaning, but if we do, I wouldn't bother adding that one to the lead, but other meanings might be worth placing there, I guess we'd have to go through them, case by case.) On second thought, maybe the hatnote at the top is enough, and we don't need to mention them? Although I had hatnote-blindness the first time, and others probably will as well; so, not sure.

Also, how's your tech knowledge about sexual reproduction via self-pollination? The wording I chose makes the implication that there is no exchange of genetic material in that case; and I'm not 100% confident about that. If true, it should probably be stated less equivocally, although maybe not that high up in the lead.

User:Mathglot How about "refers to"? As for the "Sex is also used as a synonym for sexual intercourse" issue, the article's cutline already says, "This article is about sex in sexually reproducing organisms. For the act, see sexual intercourse. ..."

Crossroads, can you comment? In particular, I'm wondering about your thoughts about the Sex is... vs. Sex relates to wording. Mathglot (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC) Depressed I can't ask Flyer about this... Mathglot (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, noticed this change, but self-pollinating plants do have separate male and female parts, they're just on the same individual. Can you try to rework? Mathglot (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads: FYI: My edit didn't "violate" WP:REFERSTO policy, which states that "Phrases such as refers to, is the name of, describes the, or is a term for are sometimes used inappropriately in the first sentence of Wikipedia articles." The term, "relates to," isn't in that list and has been used appropriately in other articles here. So, your objection doesn't hold up under that rationale, but I get your point. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 09:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The list isn't exhaustive; it clearly violates the principle given therein. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Before I read this I did this which works the best of the ones so far I think. I think the hatnote is enough as far as that confusion goes. Yes, Flyer would have been a great help for this (and many other things). Crossroads ^-talk- 20:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the last question, that was saying that there were two separate organisms, but such a plant is a single organism. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

change to lead, part 2

We're closer to substantive consensus, but the semantics of "sex is a system" doesn't ring right for me. Also, two "that" clauses in the definition is a bit burdensome. My next attempt at concision (and precision): "Sex is a male or female attribute in organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction." I think "attribute" is better than "characteristic" based on the etymology of the terms. Mathglot? Crossroads? Newimpartial? Anyone else? --Kent Dominic·(talk) 10:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

P.S. to Crossroads: I don't mind using "is" rather than "relates to" in the context of the above definition since "attribute" indicates a quality considered typical but not necessarily intrinsic. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 10:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

None of the sources define sex as an "attribute". And then people might read that and think it means a particular male or female attribute. What we should look for is what dictionaries of biology or encyclopedias of biology say and how they define the term. CycoMa, got any sources of that sort at hand? Crossroads ^-talk- 04:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind that whatever definition ensues, it has to rationally apply to the entire article, not just the lead paragraph. So the current "Sex is a system ..." verbiage doesn't accord with the "The different sexes of an organism often have physical differences" statement in the third paragraph. (I.e., it should be, "The different sexes of an organism within a species..."

I had intended not to offer the biological definition of sex from my own lexicon (i.e. due to intellectual property rights considerations, since it's copyrighted but not yet published), but it might be worth consideration:

[Sex is] 2. a category that differentiates individuals within certain species, including humans, according to female populations whose members typically have two X chromosomes versus male populations whose members typically have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome.

That straightforward, rather pedantic definition is copyrighted in my textbook's glossary and is quite obviously derivative research with cross-links to Wikipedia re. "X chromosomes" and "Y chromosome," but I'm willing to let Wikipedia use the definition upon consensus. If so, I'll trust the paper trail here stands as evidence regarding the definition's origin and I'll see to proper attribution after my own publication. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 14:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Aside from any intellectual property considerations, a definition of "sex" that does not apply generally to reptiles and birds would not be encyclopaedically appropriate, given the scope of the article. This is one of the reasons we rely on reliable sources. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thus, "certain" and "typically." The fourth paragraph of this article gives the mammalian breakdown as well as the ZW and XO stuff. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 15:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

What makes mammals "typical"? I sense POV. :p. Newimpartial (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

As the wise dude once said, "I can read it for you, but I can't understand it for you." Nothing from above implies mammals are "typical." In fact, nothing in the most recent definition refers to mammals at all. For the those with deficient literacy: "typically" is an adverb that modifies a verb phrase beginning with "have," which relates to members of female populations and male populations (as respectively defined by chromosomally) of certain species. Wiktionary is sadly known to give refuge to editors with myopia concerning their own bumptious view of the world. Add to that a contrarian attitude and you'll see editors lacking the courage, skill, and ingenuity to proffer substitute text for whatever they're quick to excoriate or delete. Don't want to be on that list? Then use your vast wealth of intellect, perfect grammar, and superior grasp of NPOV to fix the lead definition here once and for all the acolytes to bid their consensus. Nothing doing? Yep, s’why I ain't holdin’ my breath. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Somewhere in all that verbiage, Kent, you misplaced my point, which is that the XY system isn't any more "typical" than any other sex-determination system - it just happens to be the one mammals use. You just can't see that because you are lost in your mammalian POV. :) Newimpartial (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

In fact, that reading would be more GF than I really want to A, because male populations whose members typically have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome seems to be much more of a hedge against XXY and intersex conditions than a recognition of ZO and ZW systems - unless of course there can be multiple sex-determination systems within the same population. In that case I'm afraid we're in Star Trek, and I would like my replicator now plz. Newimpartial (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Anyone have constructive comments? --Kent Dominic·(talk) 22:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Sex is a "system"; or not

Going back to the first sentence of this subsection, I can see a point for why calling sex a system could be suboptimal, but not for the same reason you stated. Where I maybe align with you, is that I don't think of sex as a system in the aggregate, as it's a part of sexual reproduction; *that* is the "system" here, for me, and "sex" is some important part of it somehow. If you agree with that so far, then the question becomes, "Well, what kind of part? A subsystem? An attribute? A characteristic? A mechanism? A category?" To me, "pollination" and "internal fertilization" seem like major subsystems of "sexual reproduction", and "gametes" seem like a "mechanism" (one of them) that underlies pollination and internal fertilization, but "sex" seems orthogonal to both of those. I'm still looking for the right word or expression to abstract the concept in the right way, so it fits in with all the other words involved in a way that leads to clarity. There's something about category that bothers me, maybe because it's sometimes a weak descriptor, like kind or type which doesn't impart a lot of information and seems to be the kind of word one goes with when one can't find the exact right one. Maybe I'm wrong; sometimes it's the right word; is it here? I dunno. Make a case for category or whatever word you like. Mathglot (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to make the case for "category", though I think it obvious that sex is, among other things, a category. But one of the other things that "sex" is, is an attribute within a system of reproduction. That makes more sense to me than "subsystem", FWIW. Newimpartial (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks; had an {{ec}}-near miss with your comment, but managed to sneak by; probably my slow typing. Mathglot (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Finally some plainspoken opinions (rather than ipse dixits) that are rational and constructive; and finally no trace of bloviation to mar the discussion. Now go the next step and submit your own definition for scrutiny. Chances are that the first draft won't pass collective muster, yet I can all but guaranty that it'll be better than prior attempts. To recap my stance:

• This article's preface says that the topic is about sex in sexually reproducing organisms.
• The lead definition should cogently define whatever "sex" means as it pertains to this article.

My primary concern is that the definition ultimately (1) comport with the mention of "sex" in the lead paragraph of article on life expectancy, and (2) accord with the later mentions of "sex" in the article here. As of now, this article creates ambiguity by applying the term, "sex," in a fluctuating manner of meaning. E.g.:

1. "Animals are usually mobile and seek out a partner of the opposite sex for mating." (Unsourced)
2. "The different sexes of an organism often have physical differences." (Unsourced)
3. "One of the basic properties of life is reproduction, the capacity to generate new individuals, and sex is an aspect of this process." (Unsourced)
4. "Sex comprises the arrangements that enable sexual reproduction." (Unsourced)
5. "In complex organisms, the sex organs are the parts that are involved in the production and exchange of gametes in sexual reproduction." (Unsourced)

[NOTE: The link re. sex organs seems faulty. Can anyone fix it?]

Statements 1, 2, 4, and 5 are suited to sex as a characteristic or attribute; statement 3 is ambiguously suited to sex as a characteristic, attribute, or reproductive act. None of the statements correspond to sex defined as a category or a system. (Thanks to your most recent comment, I've accordingly scrapped my textbook's definition of "sex" as inadequate for my own purposes as I found it semantically conflicts with collateral sentences. It's now a classification, which is defined quite differently than category, together with a different sense of what biological sex entails as it pertains to male and female characteristics.)

Newimpartial, for all your doctrinal obsession to adherence to WP:THIS&THAT, why haven't you deleted the numerous unsourced statements listed above? Don't answer that. They don't merit deletion despite being blatant examples of original research. Some things that simply make prima facie sense nonetheless need to be said as premises given the nonexistence of a reliable cite. Accordingly, why don't you emerge from your timid shell of contrarianism take a constructive stab at making the case for a reliable definition we can all agree? I'll be the first to excoriate anyone who belittles the effort rather than rationally criticize the result. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 09:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Just thought I'd quote this sentence from the second paragraph, which is how we describe sex in the context of gametes:

The gametes produced by an organism define its sex: male organisms produce small gametes (e.g. spermatozoa, or sperm, in animals) while female organisms produce large gametes (ova, or egg cells; ovules in plants).

in case that helps to think about the question I posed above. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

After reading the above, I did this. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads and Kent Dominic:, dictionaries often use the construction "any of several..." when something is a member of a set with a small number of elements (e.g., camphene, cooter, naio, sallow, flu, crimson, hake, aggregate, cobra, herpes, periwinkle, even the definition of category, itself) and "either of two..." in a smaller number of cases, for things that fortuitously number only two (propyl, butane, jute, or bile) or which are dyadic by nature (twin, offset (#2), half, or millstone).

Some dictionaries like M-W or dictionary.com finesse the whole issue of choosing among attribute / characteristic / mechanism and just use a generic word such as division or form (type would also belong in that generic list, as would category imho). For example: M-W says: "either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures" (an earlier version said, "either of two divisions into which many living things can be divided according to their roles in reproduction and which consist of males or females").

So, we could start: "Sex is either of two divisions..." and go on from there, according to what we have, or come up with. Comments? Mathglot (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial:; did I miss anyone else? Mathglot (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin:. Mathglot (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits.

So I have been seeing talk on this article about definitions here so I am just gonna jump in and see what I can do. I am gonna present sources in this comment and see if any of them might of use. These sources are gonna be from dictionaries and biologists.

I'll quote certain parts from the biological sources to see what yall think. I can't quote everything they say so do forgive me if I missed certain things.

You do not have to read everything in this comment, I am just showing sources and see what they say. So yeah I added a table of context to make this comment easy to scroll through.

Table of context in comment 1. Dictionary definitions. 2. Sources from biologists. 3. Personal statements.

1. Dictionary definitons

Cambridge dictionary: the state of being either male or female:

www.merriam-webster:

Biology dictionary. (Not sure who made this/)

2. Sources from biologists

Book on Hermaphroditism

"A hermaphrodite is an individual that produces functional male and female gametes during its lifetime." (page 1.)

"Among the vertebrates, approximately 99% of all species consist in separate-sex individuals, meaning that each individual is either male or female." (page xi)

"From an evolutionary vantage, the one and only phenotypic feature that consistently distinguishes males from females is gamete size." (page 7.)

The_Biology_of_Reproduction

"We refer to an individual's sex condition as its state to sexual function, either male or female, but also both male and female (hermaphrodite) or neither male or female (sexually intermediate). Thus there are two sexes, but four sex conditions. In anisogamety, an individual's sex coincides with the type of gametes it produces: male if it produces male gametes exclusively, female if it only produces female gametes, and hermaphrodite if, simultaneously or at different times, it is able to produce both types of gametes." (page 112.)

Britannica

"Sex, the sum of features by which members of species can be divided into two groups—male and female—that complement each other reproductively."

"If only sperm cells are produced, the reproductive gland is a testis, and the primary sex of the tissue and the individual possessing it is male. If only eggs are produced, the reproductive gland is an ovary, and the primary sex is female. If the gland produces both sperm and eggs, either simultaneously or successively, the condition is known as hermaphroditic. An individual, therefore, is male or female or hermaphrodite primarily according to the nature of the gonad."

Communicative & Integrative Biology.

@CycoMa: Of all of that stuff, Britannica seems to provide the most generic sense of what "sex" means to me. Yet, the syntax is deplorable due to punctuation errors. In paraphrase, "Sex is an attribute, typically male or female, in organisms that propagate the their species through sexual reproduction." Substitute "characteristic" for "attribute" and I'd still be please. I'm not enamored of using "features" instead. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 22:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

3. Personal statements.

I am just gonna say this. This article is about biology, not sociology, not politics, and not the study of language. So please avoid sources and arguments about stuff like that.

@CycoMa: Thank Newimpartial for getting the discussion off track, I took the bait. Sorry. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 22:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I do not get where this whole attribute thing is coming from, to be honest, the whole "Sex is a male or female attribute in organisms that propagate the species through sexual reproduction." doesn't make much sense also I do have a slight issue with that sentence. Because this article touches on sex across various species and not all species have males and females.

@CycoMa: This article starts out by saying, "This article is about sex in sexually reproducing organism." Elsewhere in the article there are assertions that sexually reproduction accounts for 95% to 99% of the species, depending on whom you believe and which species are included. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but sexual reproduction necessarily entails attributes (or characteristics, genetic features, or whatever) that are male or female. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 22:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Some species are neither or only have hermaphrodites.

@CycoMa: True, but this article isn't supposed to be about that topic unless those species' members constitute sexually reproducing organisms. Furthermore, this article is not about asexually reproducing organisms.--Kent Dominic·(talk) 22:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe there is a source out there that has a definition that is broad and clear. I should also state this, labels and classifications are a human creation, things in nature don't have labels attached to them.

@CycoMa: Of course you're right! That's why I advocate using "attribute" (i.e. we attribute certain identities, genetic functions, and characteristics to members of certain species that engage in sexual reproduction) based on our own observations. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 22:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I will try and see there any biology sources that give a definition to sex itself.CycoMa (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I do have more sources and I know where to find them I am merely adding these few just so this comment wouldn't be too long.CycoMa (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

That was pretty long, so I'll just confine myself to one part of it. You said,

Because this article touches on sex across various species and not all species have males and females.

Yeah they do. Afaik, that's universal among species that reproduce sexually. I don't know what you are going for, here; name a species that reproduces sexually that doesn't have male and female gametes. Mathglot (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

What I am trying to say is that sex does vary across species. This article mentions that Fungi cannot be accurately described as male or female.

Also hermaphrodites function as both male and female.

There are also species with more than two mating types. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7062084/

Some can even have thousands of sexes. https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/why-this-fungus-has-over-20-000-sexes

There is also something called isogamy CycoMa (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa:, Recall Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, which is kind of the way the real world says WP:DUEWEIGHT.

On a separate note: you've been around for a while now, and it would be good for you to get on board with talk page conventions, including the use of standardized indentation on replies. Please have a look at WP:THREAD, and follow their recommendations whenever possible. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: I'm no scientist, so I can't substantiate the claim that 95-99% of the species have either a male or female sex. Nonetheless, without citing evidence, that number seems about right. Among the species outside that range, how many other sexes are there? Beats me. Yet, I think a statement such as "Sex is an attribute, typically male or female, in organisms that propagate the species through sexual reproduction" is pretty valid. It's an original research, but the "typically" qualification leaves room for all of the other forms contrary to male or female. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 22:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Mathglot (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Um I shown sources that there are species with sexes that are neither male or female. (Although they are rare.) CycoMa (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

"I will use standard indent..."

Next time, I'm going to make you stay after school, and write, "I will use standard indentation in Talk threads "   on the blackboard 100 times. Mathglot (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh alright CycoMa (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Rejected. Sorry; there's extra chalk over there, if you use this one up. Mathglot (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

come on give me a break I’m on a phone CycoMa (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

But seriously I believe you were missing one of my points. There are species who don’t have exclusively males and females.

Some species have males and hermaphrodities.

Some have females and hermaphrodites.

Some have males, females, and hermaphrodites.

There are even species where male and female isn’t applied. That’s my entire point. CycoMa (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Kent already answered you on that, above. Mathglot (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm no scientist, so I can't substantiate the claim that 95-99% of the species have either a male or female sex. Nonetheless, without citing evidence, that number seems about right. Among the species outside that range, how many other sexes are there? Beats me. Yet, I think a statement such as "Sex is an attribute, typically male or female, in organisms that propagate the species through sexual reproduction" is pretty valid. It's an original research, but the "typically" qualification leaves room for all of the other forms contrary to male or female.
— Kent Dominic

I thought I already a source for that. Didn’t you see it? CycoMa (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa, when you quote another editor, you need to do something to ensure that other readers know that the quotation is their words, not your words. At a *very minimum", you need to use double quote marks, and mention their name. I've embedded your quotation of Kent's words inside a {{talk quote}} template, and added his name, to accomplish this.

Maybe also take a break from writing here, and read over WP:TALK, paying particular attention to WP:TPO and WP:THREAD. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa - maybe you should set up WP:REPLYLINK, and then it will auto-indent your comments for you. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Kent Dominic, I see that above you split up CycoMa's comment with your replies. Per WP:TPO, you shouldn't be doing that. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

"Sex is a male or female attribute"

"Okay, and which attribute is it?" is what readers will be thinking. That opening makes no grammatical sense. Supposedly the pre-existing violated some rule of grammar, although it is not clear to me what it is. Sex is the attribute of male or female. That attribute is in the organism, etc. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. We should restore the previous text: "Sex is the attribute of male or female in organisms that propagate" etc. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC); edited 06:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads: Your edit doesn't violate a grammar rule; it ignores the semantic rule of singular versus plural construction (i.e. "Sex is the [singular]] attribute..." since there are a plural number of attributes. Your edit also contains an ambiguous use of the word "of." I.e., it conflates the genetive sense regarding "of" concerning whether sex is (A.) an attribute possessed by a male/female [canonical noun] or (B.) an attribute conferred onto an organism. So, "Sex is a male or female attribute" (with male and female used as noun adjuncts) remedies both semantic flaws. If you still have problems discerning the syntax of that edit, try any of the following:

1. "A sex is a male or female member of organisms that propagate the species through sexual reproduction." (NOTE: Here, "male" and "female" are used attributively as in the remainder of the article, e.g. "male organisms produce small gametes..." and "both male and female gametes are termed hermaphroditic" etc.)
2. "Sex is an attribute, either male or female, in organisms that propagate the species through sexual reproduction." (Ibid note #1.)
3. "Sex is an attribute, typically male or female, in organisms that propagate the species through sexual reproduction." (Ibid note #1).

@SlimVirgin: Still unconvinced? Consider "Rice is the grain of cereal grown in temperate and tropical regions..." versus "Rice is a cereal grain..." The former falsely entails a singular grain (perhaps not a singular crop but a singular seed!); the latter remedies the flawed semantics. By analogy, do you honestly say, "I used to ride the bus of a school" or "I used to ride a school bus"? Do you say, "Acme has been the car dealer of new or used in the industry that retails automobiles" or "Acme has been a new or used car dealer in the industry that retails automobiles"? 'Cause that's what this boils down to. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 09:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

On the one hand, I agree with Crossroads and SlimVirgin, and on the other, I can't believe there is edit warring and now two discussions on what is a disagreement about the choice between the definite vs indefinite articles the and a, when there are more important issues in this article. Sigh... I hesitate to get into the details of your grammatical points, Kent, because I foresee that going down an endless rabbit hole about minutiae of arcane grammatical issues that have less and less relevance for the improvement of this article, the further we go down that road. So I'm struggling to think how to respond here, without doing that. Maybe by pointing out that your analogies with rice and cars are faulty, as they seem designed to point out that there are other cars, other grains, and thereby fail the central point of the analogy intended to prove your a/the point.

Again, attempting to illustrate this while avoiding the event horizon of the rabbit hole: remove the 'male and female' from the statement, and you get: "Sex is ____ attribute in organisms that propagate the species through sexual reproduction." What goes in the blank? I'd say the, although it's obviously tautological (and awkward). The reason it's the, is because there's one "thing" that sexually-reproducing organisms have, that asexually-reproducing things don't have, and that one thing is "sex". Since there's only one "thing", ergo the.

Another angle; read this job application instruction and fill in the blank: "Please check ___ box corresponding to your sex, male or female." Although there are two of them, it's "the" box, right? Here, "box" is the stand-in for "attribute": "the box", "the attribute".

Kent, I'm not dismissing your points of grammar, I just think they need to be argued at another venue; perhaps the Noun adjunct article, maybe the Linguistics WikiProject, perhaps at MOS:, because they potentially affect a lot more articles than just this one. I tried to respond here in a way that people interested in the improvement of this article can engage in, whether they agree with me, or whether they don't, which I consider less important than keeping the discussion on track and accessible to as many interested editors as possible, and less on a narrower discussion of fine grammatical points which I think you excel in, but which—pardon me—are not helping us get to a solution in this particular instance. Mathglot (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Sorry for overlooking that first sentence until just now. I need to refute your conclusion. Namely, this is not a disagreement about definite vs indefinite articles. (The determiners are incidental to what follows.) I believe @Crossroads:, @SlimVirgin:, and I agree in effect, that sex is (presumptively) the (biological) attribute (typically) associated with male members and female members that propagate the species through sexual reproduction." I further believe that neither Crossroads nor SlimVirgin fully grasp how the genitive vs partitive distinctions regarding the word, "of" doesn't reflect that intent in the "sex is the attribute of male or female" wording. In other words, biological sex cannot be an attribute that belongs to "male or female." Instead, sex is (presumptively) either a male attribute or a female attribute. Properly worded, maybe Crossroads and SlimVirgin intended, "sex is the range of typically male attributes or typically female attributes in organisms that propagate the their species through sexual reproduction. THAT wording makes sense, and it's functionally the same as the lead that's currently in the article. As always, the style of the wording is immaterial as far as I'm concerned. By contrast, @CycoMa: and @Newimpartial: would likely blast the wording as original research. And, if so, they should similarly blast the version that Crossroads uploaded. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 00:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

In this case, "of" is being used in neither genitive nor partitive roles. Here it is used in the sense of "characterized by" as in "clothed in a gown of grey" or "a bear of very little brain." It may not be elegant diction, but it is compact and understandable. Just plain Bill (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Guess again. Both of your examples use "of" in its characteristic sense, as complemented by nouns. If applied in the same way to "of male or female," the nominal sense of "male" and "female" conflicts with the use regarding those terms in the rest of the article, where they are decidedly attributive. Moreover, if intended in the genitive sense, the wording should have been "of males and females." --Kent Dominic·(talk) 02:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kent Dominic: (edit conflict) okay, I'll wait for them to comment. But note, I've made a change wrt to the other discussion, that has nothing to do with this one but which may finesse it, because it removes attribute entirely and make this one moot. These separate discussions should perhaps have been just one discussion, with separate subsections; but it's a bit late for that now. Anyway, if you'd rather continue from the previous version before that change, I'll self-revert and we can carry on as before. Mathglot (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry about me re. self-reversion. For me, interest-wise, it's a fourth-degree of separation that seems to concern other editors more than it concerns me. I've checked with the bookies to see the odds they've given for your definition's survival on its own merits without someone else reverting it. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 02:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

*** TPO REPAIR *** Moved KD's interpolated comment of 00:18, 13 April from the middle of Mathglot's comment of 18:59, 12 April to the end of that comment. Moving follow-up reply to KD's interpolated comment by JPB, to the end of KD's comment. Moving Mathglot's (ec) comment to the end of JPB's comment. But there was already a 21:55, 12 April by KD (immediately below this), so not clear where the 00:18, 13 Apr interpolated comment and the two follow-ups should go: before it, or after it? Probably before; so placing them here. Mathglot (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Context matters: "the" is syntactically correct, parsed in isolation, as the topic relates to the singular attribute regarding sex. Yet, the sentence is more than awkward; it's factually invalid because organisms have more than one attribute. Thus, "an" is semantically valid as it identifies a singular attribute among others in organisms that propagate the species..." Your example would be better rendered as "Sex is the attribute that determines certain male or female characteristics in organisms that propagate the species..."

Mathglot, We agree that it's "the" box. However, your illustration aptly points out that the box corresponds to an attribute that is presumptively binary. The "the" operates distributively, i.e. "Check the box corresponding to 'male' and, if not, check the box corresponding to female." Again, context matters: "Check a box" implies "check any box," which isn't the ordinarily the semantic intent. (Incidentally, I came from the womb thinking that the forms should say "corresponding to your 'gender' instead of 'sex.'" My rationale was totally distinct from modern-day thinking on the issue but nonetheless comports with gender fluidity. Again, that's a whole nother story.)

@Mathglot: A separate editor asked for my grammar input here, so I gave it. Long story short: I've got the goods to parse the semantics of the edit(s) in this article's lead. Certain other editors seem not to have fully thought out the semantic implications. It's arcane stuff, but now it's here on record. And, regarding your examples on the use of determiners, I'll just reiterate: Context matters. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 21:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Fixed WP:TPO violation. Reconstituted my comment of 18:59, 12 April 2021 in its original form, and moved Kent's triple-interpolation of 21:55 to a position following the end of my 18:59 comment. This is tricky business, and if there's a mistake, I'll have to self-revert, and take another run at it. Mathglot (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

You Spin Me Round (Like a Record). --Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kent Dominic: The "of ..." in this case is epexegetical; cf "the act of murder", "the virtue of charity", "the crime of larceny", "the city of Paris", etc. Cheers, gnu57 13:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Genericusername57: Ooh. I'm thoroughly familiar with exegesis and exegetical, but I didn't know of the expegesis and epexegetical variants until now. Kudos to you. Re. your point: It's not entirely right to say that "the 'of' in this case is epexegetical." Instead, the "of" in the case is a failed attempt to be epexegetical. I.e., the preposition, "of," requires a nominal word, nominal phrase, or nominal clause in every case. There are no exceptions. (If you find one, please let me know.) Yet, Crossroads complemented "of" with "male or female," which of course can entail a nominal sense but, in the context of this article, is only otherwise used adjectivally. So I suppose you're mostly right in a way that emphasizes my point: The "attribute of male or female" phrase is presumptively epexegetical but semantically wrong since there was no rational way to believe "of" was intended to be genitive in this case. Thanks for the new vocabulary. Let's see how long my short-term memory and spelling of epexejetical epexecgetical epexegetical hold up. Ah, forget it. I'm just gonna go with "expositive." Anyway, please speak with admin to collect your Best Post of the Day prize. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 15:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

NOT re. sex, per se...

In trying to determine the root of @Crossroads: and @SlimVirgin:'s quarrel with the "Sex is a male or female attribute..." statement versus the "Sex is the attribute of male or female" verbiage, I just now noticed a disturbing point: as each articulation links to male and female, those respective articles have leads that aren't in semantic sync. Specifically, the lead in the article on female says, "Female (symbol: ♀) is the sex of an organism..." wherein "female" is used nominally as a referent for "sex," which is used predicately and nominally in reference to biological sex. By contrast, the lead in the article on male says, "A male (♂) organism is the physiological sex that ...)" wherein "male" is used attributively as a referent for "sex," which is used predicately and nominally in reference to biological sex. Thus, the lead defines "male organism" rather than "male."

Those definitions for "male" and "female" affect this article on sex since they're cross-linked. In my view, the definition for "female" is topically sound (i.e. it defines "female" as the topic of the article) but the definition for "male" is topically flawed (i.e. it defines "male organism" instead of "male") in much the same way that I criticized the topical non-relevance of the original lead definition for this article as it stood one month ago.

Accordingly, if the "Sex is a male or female attribute..." lead is left to stand in this article, then the lead in the article on Male needs to be changed to comport with the manner in which the article on Female is written. If the lead here is reverted (again) to "Sex is the attribute of male or female," then the lead in the article on Female needs to be rewritten as "Female (symbol: ♀) is the sex attribute of an organism..."

Truth be told, I have an abiding interest in neither the substance of these three articles nor in the style of their leads. My sole editorial interests relate to (1) the semantic clarity, (2) the topical relevance, and (3) the lexical consistency among the leads. My initial interest in this article arose due to its link from the life expectancy article, which had made an unfortunate reference to gender rather than to sex. I remedied that error only to find the atrocious lead here as it stood last month (i.e. "Organisms of many species are specialized into male and female varieties, each known as a sex"). To all involved: Please avoid similar instances of topical carelessness in whatever editing solutions you advance here, and please be more vigilant in noting the nexus to other articles that are entailed. Additionally, I caution you to pay greater attention to the grammatically attributive versus nominal (linguistics) uses of nouns as definitionally employed. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Seriously what is up this whole attribute. CycoMa (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I’m suspecting someone is misreading the sources or is trying to push a POV. CycoMa (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Not a POV, CycoMa; just semantic clarity, to speak for myself. As noted above, I offered my initial edit here as incidental to the life expectancy article, which makes a biological sex mention that hyperlinks here. If you have issues with the current lead here, try proposing anything that starts with "Sex is..." and, if grammatically and semantically sound, I'd probably be satisfied. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 20:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Like none of the sources cited say anything about attribute. CycoMa (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

This book for example defines a hermaphrodite as an individual that produces both male and female gametes. https://books.google.com/books?id=jqiR8C0lEckC&q=Hermaphrodite#v=snippet&q=Hermaphrodite&f=false

I’m seriously suspecting original research. CycoMa (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa, the "hermaphrodite" definition" seems wholly appropriate for discussion elsewhere in the article. The lead definition, however, topically relates solely to "sex." So, how to define biological sex? No one here seems to fully agree. But you're right that the current lead represents original research. Thank me or blame me for that. I initially proposed wording based on common sense, not a cite. Crossroads reworded it, also based on common sense, not a cite, in an infinitely better way than the lead from a month ago (yet, it has some semantic deficiencies as I pointed out above.) The cite that's still in the article says "Sex: Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions." Everyone in this discussion railed against the notion that sex = category. Criticize Crossroads and me for original research, but not for stating what I consider to be essentially obvious. And blast me for not deleting the cite as quoted above. I only left it in because it's from a published source. The cite rightfully belongs under Further reading, not as a cite, but I'm not nitpicking that issue. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 20:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Kent, yeah, in the Male article, the lead sentence "A male (♂) organism is the sex that..." is obviously off. But we don't have to resolve that problem here. This talk page *might* be a good venue to resolve inconsistencies among related articles at some point, but we should remember that "inconsistency" isn't the driving policy here, rather, WP:Verifiability is. The point being, it's possible that there are inconsistencies, or different emphasis among sources, among the articles (Sex, Male, Female) in which case, we would reflect that here as well. Now, I don't expect that in this case; I believe that the sources will align fairly well, and that we can or will end up with a set of defining sentences among the three articles (and maybe further afield, to Sexual reproduction, Asexual reproduction, Gamete, and beyond). But the point is, each article must independently follow policies of WP:V, WP:DUE WEIGHT, and since we're a volunteer project, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NODEADLINE mean that things might be inconsistent for a while. That's something else to add to the global To-do list for the editor community, but it's not a catastrophe; there are articles all over that are entirely unsourced, and that's a bigger problem than whether these three articles are perfectly aligned or not. Mathglot (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Mathglot, I'm not holding my breath for consensus on getting the Male definition straightened out. I don't mean to be condescending, but I have a waning belief whether most editors here can discern the relevance of attributive versus nominal verbiage, to say nothing of their sense of how "attribute" differs from "characteristic." If you like conspiracy theories, Bill Gates is the culprit behind all this. Before his contribution to the emergence of big data and to the development of hyperlinks, no one except a savant would have spotted all of these inconsistencies. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 20:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Kent, maybe finesse it. See #Sex is a "system"; or not, above. Mathglot (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I would do just that if I were more invested in the outcome here. Each degree of separation from my textbook's definition of "middle-aged" (as defined using the term "life expectancy," as defined and hyperlinked here in an article on life expectancy, which is defined using a mention of sex, which is defined using an unfortunate definition of male, which needs editing sure to cause an uproar, which... well, you get the picture) leaves my interest more and more attenuated. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Lol! Yeah, well, I figure by late middle age we'll have the definite/indefinite article question all wrapped up, and then can move on attribute vs. characteristic vs. mechanism with a target resolution for early old age; what do you think? Mathglot (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I ended up correcting the Male definition to align it with Female before I caught up to this page. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Well done! --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Sex is either of two divisions...

Unlike a month ago, that definition is a bona fide definition. It makes common sense in the context of this article, but:

1. It's original research (which, for me, isn't problematic. I'm just sayin' ... ).
2. It conflicts with the definitions both in the Male article and in the Female article - neither of which define "sex" as a division.
3. ..."the species" should be rendered as "their species".
4. Cite [1] should be deleted as non-relevant.

--Kent Dominic·(talk) 00:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

1. Well, not sure if it's OR, it's fairly close to Cite [1]; but if you mean the word "division", then you're right, we could always add a citation should be added to the body first. However, since M-W uses that, it can be cleaned up easily enough, if the sentence survives in this form, didn't want to waste my time with a cite, if there's a revert in the offing.
2. that's acceptable (even if not ideal), as long as this article is verifiable, and so is that one. Consistency or parallelism of style across articles is a nice-to-have, but not policy.
3.  Done; yeah, probably better that way;
4. One could; the guideline neither requires, nor forbids citations in the lead. It's ironic how the current lead sentence is now back to closer to Cite [1] than it's been for a while. Mathglot (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Now I'm waiting for some editor to revert "their" to "the" as a matter of original research or for reasons unknown. Kids. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 03:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: On a serious note, you might reduce your risk of reversion by adding "typically" before "male and female" or before "divided." Also, consider changing "male and female" to "male or female" to avoid you know what from you know who(m). --Kent Dominic·(talk) 03:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Mathglot (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Sex determination in humans

Regarding this edit I removed the source in there because one of the sources added in that were clearly not written by biologists.

I tried looking into this thing my self and here are the sources I could find. (this is all I could find at the moment.)

Source 1.

Source 2.

I couldn't find sources saying it is determined by five factors. Also, the whole "the type of gonads" being a factor is a little weird, either I'm confused or the source doesn't know what sex determination means. CycoMa (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as I said when removing it: Agreed with this removal as absolutely WP:UNDUE. This is a minor journal in its field, and "a philosophical introspection" in a neonatal surgery journal is not in the relevant field of expertise, which is biology. Sex determination in humans is the same as all other therian mammals. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

“ The majority of flowering plants are bisexual, the perfect flowers containing both male and female sexual organs, and are said to be dioecious.”

I don’t understand what this sentence even means. CycoMa (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

No, you are right. Perfect flowers are definitely monecious, so that was some kind of brain fart. Plantsurfer 16:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

No, its the "the perfect flowers containing both male and female sexual organs, and are said to be dioecious" that's confusing, doesn't dioecy in plants means that male and female reproductive organs are on separate flowers? Or am I misreading that.CycoMa (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

see my previous comment. It should have read monoecious. I have changed the word in the article Plantsurfer 16:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Sex determination

This sentence "The gametes produced by an organism define its sex" is logically putting the cart before the horse. Sex is not either defined or determined by gametes, but by sex chromosomes. Plantsurfer 09:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe you are confused on what “The gametes produced by an organism define its sex.” I believe that sentence is trying to say an organism that produces sperm is male and an organism that produces ovum is female.

Actually sex chromosomes determine sex not define sex. That aren’t the same thing. CycoMa (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Some information doesn’t line up

I scroll through my sources and I noticed somethings. I noticed that not all the information presented in the sources may be 100% accurate.

The sources themselves are still reliable, but there are times when they contradict themselves. CycoMa (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

like the encyclopedic of reproduction mentions that in gonochoric species an individual is either male or female, and stays male or female their entire life. Then later on talks about “not assign a binary gender”.

CycoMa (talk) 04:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Ow wait I just realized why that’s the case the books I cited are written by various individuals from various fields, some chapters discuss biology and others discuss medicine. So just keep that in mind if someone is gonna call that out. I should also probably work on the citations if that’s the case. CycoMa (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

This particular sentence confuses me. "Most sexually reproducing animals spend their lives as diploid, with the haploid stage reduced to single-cell gametes." I think more should be added to it to help people have a basic understanding of what that means.CycoMa (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Alternation of generations puts it like this: "Animals develop differently. They directly produce haploid gametes. No haploid spores capable of dividing are produced, so generally there is no multicellular haploid phase. (Some insects have a sex-determining system whereby haploid males are produced from unfertilized eggs; however females produced from fertilized eggs are diploid.)"

Unlike plants and algae, there is no alternation of multicellular generations, and usually no multicellular haploid stage in animals. Plantsurfer 22:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Missing information

I just realized this article has tons of missing information. I get that it’s a encyclopedia and encyclopedias are supposed to give generalized information about topics. But, this article is way too small and doesn’t mention all things about this topic.

Like this article talks about anisogamy and isogamy. But, doesn’t mention oogamy. I also read that in some species dioecious species, dioecy evolved from hermaphroditism.

I also read through the sources and one of them mentioned that anisogamy evolved from isogamy but, the article never mentions it.

I’m saying this article should have 3 paragraphs for XY sex chromosomes or an entire essay on hermaphroditism since many of these topics already have articles for them. But, let’s not forget this topic in itself is very broad.CycoMa (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

In the gametophytes of plants it is not uncommon for sequential dioecy to occur, e.g. male reproductive organs appearing first, and females later. A pretty clear adaptive advantage of that would be that it avoids the risk of selfing. Plantsurfer 10:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Rewording the lead

@CycoMa I am uncomfortable about the wording of the first sentence of the lead, firstly because it refers to division twice; secondly because if they are divided it is because we do it, we pigeon-hole them. Organisms develop or differentiate into one sex (or mating type) or another. I propose the following tweaks to remedy this- "Sex is either of two functional types, typically referred to as male or female, into which organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction differentiate." Plantsurfer 10:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Opposed to this. Referring to division twice is a stylistic issue and minor; anyway, I don't support elegant variation and if using the same word twice is more precise, then I'm for it. Still, if you have a better way to not use division twice, I'm amenable. Secondly, "if they are divided it is because we do it": huh?? Also, in what way is cellular differentiation a worthwhile link in the first sentence? Also, if you are planning on rewording the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE, there was considerable discussion of this before with quite a cast of characters, and it only quiesced fairly recently. If you really want to take this on again, then maybe ping the rest of the discussants. Mathglot (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I honestly oppose the whole

Sex is either of two functional types, typically referred to as male or female
— Kent Dominic

since an organism can still be male or female even if they aren’t functional. Also many of the sources have mentioned that most species that produce sexually have two sexes.

are divided it is because we do it, we pigeon-hole them.
— Kent Dominic

What are you even taking about. I think you are arguing against a mainstream view here. Check WP:MAINSTREAM.

Much of the information presented in this article is from main stream biologists. Just scroll through the sources yourself. Like seriously must we repeat this whole thing again.CycoMa (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Not entirely sure about sex chromosomes in evolution

I’m not entirely sure about sex chromosomes in the evolution section. Actually the evolution section seems a little vague.CycoMa (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead: Still troublesome

@Crossroads, CycoMa, Mathglot, and Plantsurfer: I'm happy with the "Sex is" part, but I'm not satisfied seeing sex defined as a division. In my mind, sex is an attribute both in the generic and in the linguistic sense. Yet, the article refers to sex both in the attributive sense and in the nominal sense, so that should be taken into account in the lead. Additionally, I agree with Plantsurfer that mentioning division twice is awkward. Some alternatives:

1. Sex is a property, typically male or female, relating to organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction.
2. Sex is a property, typically male or female, attributed to organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction.
3. Sex is an attribute, typically male or female, as a property of organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction.

Cast your vote here: □ --Kent Dominic·(talk) 20:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh my lord this again, look Wikipedia is not a democracy please check WP:DEM. Sex being a division is cited in source one. Changing it to any of these is original research. CycoMa (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Hold on a minute I believe some of the sources I cited may have a better definition. I’ll just have to check. CycoMa (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Source #1 says it's a category, not a division. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 05:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Check again it says “are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions”.CycoMa (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

"Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions." It's not divisions ... are divided. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 09:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

That would be an improvement, but my other quibble about that sentence is the phrase "..and most other living things .." That is manifestly false. Eukaryotes do sex, prokaryotes do not, and the lead of the eukaryote article contains this statement: "Eukaryotes represent a tiny minority of the number of organisms". This needs to be fixed. Plantsurfer 11:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll just put this here: "Sex is a phenotypic trait expressed as male or female in humans and most other eukaryotes that determines an individual's reproductive function."Plantsurfer 11:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Plantsurfer: I like where you're going with that, but the punctuation needs tweaking to avoid the dangling modifier: "Sex is a phenotypic trait, expressed as male or female in humans and most other eukaryotes, that determines an individual's reproductive function." Or, to satisfy the WP:OR hounds, "Sex is a phenotypic category, expressed as male or female in humans and most other eukaryotes, that determines an individual's reproductive function." I agree that sex is a trait/attribute/characteristic, but "category" is what the source says. (Certain snarky editors are loath to sacrifice sourced stuff for common sense.) Another thing: the "either of two divisions" verbiage in the current lead is semantically at odds with "typically." Meaning, if it's deemed either of two, "typically" is pleonastic; if it's deemed one of several (as CycoMa argues), your approach makes even better sense. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 12:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Seriously like I said I agree with you guys the lead has issues but, you guys aren’t even helping in fixing that issue.

@Plantsurfer: you have been POV pushing and making arguments that goes against what the sources are saying, I have also called you out on your either statement in the last discussion.

Sex is a phenotypic trait expressed as male or female.
— User:Plantsurfer

Yeah that’s technically original research, although I believe I remember one of the sources I cited said something similar.

@Kent Dominic:

In my mind, sex is an attribute both in the generic and in the linguistic sense.
— User:Kent Dominic

This is why I’m calling you a POV pusher and accusing of original research. Tell me what source says sex is a attribute. If there aren’t any sources that say it’s a attribute then Wikipedia shouldn’t say it is.

It's not divisions ... are divided
— User:Kent Dominic

Do you even know what division and divided even means.

If you guys want to add your views on what sex is then find a source that states what y’all are saying and add it. If not then this discussion is a complete waste of time.CycoMa (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

---

For anyone who is intransigently blockheaded in mistaking substantive "POV pushing" for the semantic identification of a lexical category: "intelligence quotient" is a nominal phrase that includes "intelligence" as an attribute. Yes, the foregoing assertion constitutes an unabashed bit of WP:OR for the benefit the lexicographically deficient - especially those editors who seem bent on tilting at windmills.
Need more tilting? Some additional WP:OR fodder:

This is why I’m calling you a POV (attribute) pusher and accusing of original (attribute) research. Tell me what (attribute) source says sex is a [sic] attribute. If there aren’t any (attribute/determiner) sources that say it’s a [sic] attribute then Wikipedia shouldn’t say it is. - CycoMa
 

Is someone STILL eager to tilt? Here's MORE fodder from the article for anyone's next screed:

*Sex (attribute) chromosome.
*Sex-(attribute)determination (attribute) system.
*Sex (attribute) organs.
*Sexual (attribute) organs.
*Sexual (attribute) reproduction.
*Sex is either (subject complement) of two (attribute) divisions, typically (adverb) male (attribute) or female (attribute).

My WP:OR regarding grammatical parsing knows no bounds. Shame on me.

Anybody need a dose of substantive WP:OR? Here goes: The attributive sense of "male" and "female" in this article's lead conflicts with the nominal sense of "male" and "female" in those hyperlinked articles. Mathglot (talk · contribs) said he's fine with that bit of inconsistency, and I'm not making a big deal of it. I'm just calling it it out as a lexicographical oversight that could be remedied if anyone were sufficiently enterprising OCD maniacal enough to have a hack at it. Tilt away!
--Kent Dominic·(talk) 01:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

There you go original research. You list of things such as sex chromosomes, sex organs, sex determination, and sexual reproduction. If you actually read through the article you would know that stuff like that varies across species. I mean seriously did you read anything presented in this article or are you only paying attention to the lead?

What you are doing is wasting people’s time, so this discussion is over.CycoMa (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

All I am asking of you is to present a source that states sex is a attribute. Also I have no idea why you are so obsessed with the word “division”. CycoMa (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

As I have said many times I do kind of agree with your concerns, but we shouldn’t put down that “A is B” because of our own personal analyzation. That goes against Wikipedia’s policies.

Also don’t just slam gibberish in the comments because someone disagrees with you. CycoMa (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Kent, I know you're a stickler for exactitude in points of grammar and use of le bon mot, and I sympathize, but your last comment seems too invested in the grammatical/logical aspects of the article, and not enough on the meat and potatoes. Honestly, the average reader isn't going to be too concerned with the niceties, and how important is it really to 99% of the readership if we use division/attribute/aspect/kind/type and so on? Not very, I'd say. I know you're passionate about this topic, but for it to really have an impact here, you'd have to get something added to the MOS about it, and then it might trickle down to here eventually. But given what *this* article is about, I just think it's too fine a point, and too divorced from concrete improvements to the article to be worth a debate, at least, on this page.

Btw, intransigently blockheaded could be fighting words for some, so please avoid that kind of expression when possible. (Also, slightly O/T: can you please avoid using <br>, and use {{br}} or <br/> instead? The former screws up syntax highlighting on the entire page after it.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa, I sympathize as well, but what is gibberish to some, is a point of study and scholarship to others. Kent's grammatical digression is perhaps not entirely on point here, but give him some slack (i.e., just ignore that stuff) because he makes good points about improving the article when he sticks to the point. Also, POV pusher was a bit over the top; other than "stick to correct usage of English" I don't think he was really pushing anything. As far as the article itself is concerned, I don't even see that much disagreement on the basics.

If the word division / attribute is going to really be an issue here, maybe we can finesse it, by rewording in a way to avoid that; for example, by not starting the sentence with "Sex is...". One possibility, is patterning it after the first sentence of the #Overview section:

One of the basic properties of life is reproduction, the capacity to generate new individuals, and sex is an aspect of this process.

Or perhaps by using sex as a predicate nominative, instead of the subject. Maybe something like:

Sexual reproduction requires both male and female of the species, and this distinction is known as their sex.

or this:

The distinction between the male and female of species that reproduce by sexual reproduction is known as their sex.

Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I’m just saying it just feels like so many people are getting all worked up over a single sentence. Doesn’t this just seem a little ridiculous. I’m pretty sure most readers would have a basic idea what the article is talking about. But, tons of editors are over analyzing one sentence. CycoMa (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Those or something very similar could be good. Another possibility which I will suggest, combining the current one and a suggestion by Plantsurfer, is: Sex is a phenotypic trait, male or female, into which organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction are divided. Could also be tweaked to say "the phenotypic trait of male or female". Borrowing from your idea, I also like Sexual reproduction requires both the male and female of a species, each of which is [a phenotype known as] a sex. (With the bracketed phrase as optional.) I don't think we should call the distinction sex, since the sexes are the states of male and female, not the division between them per se. I'm sure with a bit more discussion we can work something out.

CycoMa, let's cool it with the accusations. It's true that historically there has been occasional activism at this article, but I don't think anyone in this discussion is doing that. I would be firmly against that if it crops up again. We all seem to agree on the fundamentals, and are just working on refining the wording. I appreciate the science-mindedness and focus on science of the editors we have, including you. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

But don’t you think we should define sex based on how biologists define it. Come to think of it I think two of the sources I cited may have a decent definition of it. I think going by the phenotype option is a little bit of original research, I don’t know many sources that directly state that’s what sex is.(I found only one that states that tho.)

Come to think of it I noticed that a good amount of sources that can easily define male, female, and hermaphrodite. But, can’t provide an exact definition of sex itself. CycoMa (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry bad grammar what I met to say was. A lot of sources I found can easily define male, female, and hermaphrodite. But they don’t provide the definition of sex itself. CycoMa (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: You're absolutely right. That's been the the root of my point all along. And I haven't given up on you (yet). I hope the proverbial lightbulb will come on when you see how your saying "Sex is typically male stuff and female stuff but also a lot of other biologically obscure-and-hard-to-neatly-pin-down stuff that often defies clear-cut categorization, division, and characterization" equals "Sex is an attribute that (insert your preferred definition HERE). I'm neither a biologist nor a biologist wannabe. I don't have a bias regarding what a biological definition should entail in order to enlighten the average reader with some practical knowledge about what sex is. I'd have no qualms with whatever the consensus is. And, once again, the current lead is 200% better than the whiff that was there in early March when I started the current discussion. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 07:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

---

@Mathglot:For the record:

1. I was fine with the current lead, troublesome as it was (and is).
2. @Plantsurfer: Proposed rewording it, and I seconded the concerns.
3. I agree with CycoMa that "division" is WP:OR. I disagree that it's therefore objectionable. "Division" makes reasonable sense, but it's not my preferred wording.
4. I was content to let "division" stand until Plantsurfer mentioned it as problematic.
5. I agree with Plantsurfer that "division... divided" is stylistically awkward - another point that I was willing to let go as I'm not one to prefer style over substance.
6. I'm nearly at wit's end trying to explain how "division" (or "category") is substantively reasonable despite not being wholly accurate while "attribute" is somewhat of a bland copout.
7. Underscoring the "attribute" versus "division" discussion is a nod to CycoMa's salient point, i.e., that "sex" - whatever it is - isn't universally bifurcated along male versus female divisions, categories, characteristics, traits, etc. It's whatever and however the biologists trend in their ability to recognize how the distinctions are manifest depending on the organism. Male versus female sex attributes is a 95-99% no-brainer; sympathies to CycoMa for the 1-5% of sexual manifestations otherwise. Calling it a "division" begs the question, "What divisions besides the 'typically' male and female divisions?" Calling it an attribute recognizes that it's male, female, and whatever else, as described or asserted (i.e. attributed) by whomever.
8. The article itself goes back and forth between attributive and nominal use of "sex." (By a loose eyeball accounting, it's about 85% attributive and 15% nominal. Same percentages apply for the uses of "male" and "female.")
9. My interest at the outset was, and remains, conforming the lead with the majority (i.e. 85%) of the mentions of "sex" - and, putatively, to male and female - in the article. The uses of "sexual" is 100% attributive, so the article is unambiguous on that point.

And re. the bon mots, the mischief-maker in me is clever enough not to go ad hominem. In other words, I let blockheads - whomever they might be - feel as blockheads are unless they're too blockheaded to catch the drift in the first place. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 07:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

“ Male versus female sex attributes is a 95-99% no-brainer; sympathies to CycoMa for the 1-5% of sexual manifestations otherwise.”

By the way I’m the one who put that 95% of animals are gonochoric and 99% of vertebrates are gonochoric. Which means that a species either has a male or a female. To those species the connect of sex being a division applies to them. But met to all species.

Because this article talks about sex from plants, animals, and even fungi.(although sex isn’t really applied to fungi.)

@Kent Dominic: also I suggest you try to use less slang speech in your comments. Because at times it’s hard for me to understand what you are saying. CycoMa (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kent Dominic: My main issue overall is that I read a little on this topic. I’m not a biologists but attribute isn’t quite language the sources I have read use. Most of them would basically define it by reproductive roles. Not by body characteristics. The issue is that they don’t use “sex is blank” but they say “male is a organism that produces sperm.” I’ll probably make another comment tag y’all and see what y’all think. CycoMa (talk) 08:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: You probably know tons more about this topic than I do. I'm not claiming any expertise. I'm not trying to be an arbiter of expert opinions on this topic. I solely want a lead definition for a target Wikipedia user who doesn't know how biological sex differs from sexual intercourse. The March 26 lead was horrid: "Organisms of many species are specialized into male and female varieties, each known as a sex." Underlying that lead is the idea that there's a male sex and a female sex. True, but only 95-99% true. Professional biologists have no need to define "sex" in terms that general readers can understand. I hope you'll agree that we need a lead definition, however it's worded, that is supported by the professionals as well as by common sense. The definition doesn't need to merely recite what professionals have written academically. For instance, "Sex is the thing that distinguishes various phenotypes, typically male or female, among organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction." Sure, it's original research. Yes, "thing" is hardly a scientific term. True, there's no mention of "attribute" as I think there ought to be. But, would the average reader understand that definition? I think so. To be clear, I'm not advocating such a lead. Instead, I'm advocating practicality. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 10:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Notes

Sex vs. sexual reproduction

Thinking about how to word the first sentence in the previous section, got me to thinking about another, even more basic question: since srticle title policy state that "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles," and regarding WP:PRECISION, that the title "should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that."

Given that, I would ask, how do we describe the scope of the articles Sex and Sexual reproduction, and what is their relationship? Is one a subset of the other? Are the sister topics? Put another way, what are some things that are in-scope in "Sex" but out of scope for "Sexual reproduction" (or vice versa)? If we cannot make a clear distinction between the two articles, then we have a problem. Maybe even a problem, that illuminates why we are having so much trouble in the discussion section above.

I can see one possible way out, which is to keep Sexual reproduction as is; I think we all understand what that is, and I think readers do, too; or they can go to the article to find out. "Sex" though, isn't so clear, which is one of the reasons there are so many discussions that seem to go in circles, here. One idea to consider, is to recast this article as a WP:Broad-concept article. This guideline describes a way to write an "article that addresses a concept that may be difficult to write about because it is abstract, or because it covers the sometimes-amorphous relationship between a wide range of related concepts." That seems tailor-made for the concept of "sex", and maybe we should consider that? Mathglot (talk) 07:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I check older versions of gender and sex related articles. And I believe the article on gender used to be this article. Also I’m not very supportive of this discussion because this article is about whether a organism is a male, female, or hermaphrodite. Not what they do when they have sex with each other. CycoMa (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

If by "what they do when they have sex with each other", you meant "sexual intercourse", that's actually another article: Sexual intercourse, which is another meaning of "sex". Which in a way, kind of argues *in favor* of having a BCA, not against it. Because "sex" can mean "sexual intercourse", or "types of gametes", or "genitalia"; heck, it's even a verb meaning "to determine whether an organism is male or female" (as in, "sexing a kitten"). Wiktionary has seven different definitions for it, and that's just for the noun.

You said, "...because this article is about whether a organism is a male, female, or hermaphrodite." Well, who says so? Is that what "Sex" means, and nothing else? Wikipedia editors don't get to decide what an article title means; if the title is "Sex", then by article title policy, it must be about whatever reliable sources say it is, not what we say it is. I think the literature would show that "Sex" has many meanings in reliable sources, and if that is so, then our article should reflect that. Or else, the title of the article must be changed to match the topic of "whether a organism is a male, female, or hermaphrodite", so we don't have to include other meanings. Perhaps, "Sex (male or female)", or "Sex (biology)", or whatever it is you mean by M/F/hermaphrodite. Mathglot (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources do say what it is. It’s just they aren’t always clear. I have read through the sources one source said sex was something along the lines of sexual phenotype, another said it was an organism’s reproductive function, another one said reproductive strategy. But, at the end of the day these labels are something we humans made. Things in nature don’t have labels attached to them.

They are very clear on what male, female, and hermaphrodites are it’s just they aren’t exact when saying all of them. CycoMa (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Also I’m pretty sure a reader would have a good idea what this article is talking about if they read through it a little. CycoMa (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: You might want to have a look at line 9, where the article says, "Males and females of a species may be similar, called isomorphism," which links to mathematical isomorphism. Perhaps genetic isomorphism is more appropriate but, as you've already noted, I'm not interested in editing stuff beyond the lead. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 10:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kent Dominic·: I noticed that I’m aware. CycoMa (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Sex as a phenotype

In humans, mammals, some plants (I am not trying to compile an exhaustive list here !) sex is determined by sex chromosomes. Ergo, it is under control of genes that in the standard language of biology determine the phenotype. The phenotype consists of the expression of genetically determined phenotypic traits. The following paper refers to sex as phenotype: Plantsurfer 12:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay but, a lot of source also define a organism’s sex by what gametes they produce. I mean even Richard Dawkins thinks this.

Also that source is from the article 1950s so I’m not entirely sure all information still holds up. CycoMa (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

But I’m not entirely against the idea of sex being a phenotype. I just think there needs to be more sources.CycoMa (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, so I haven't come across the holy grail yet, but here is another example. I think it is inconsistent to be cool with the idea that sex is genetically (and/or epigenetically) determined and deny the legitimate use of the the terms phenotype or trait:

"Embryonic gonads are thus unique in that they are the only organs that can develop in two mutually exclusive phenotypes."

https://doi.org/10.1002/dvdy.23924 Plantsurfer 18:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I haven't stumbled upon the holy grail either. I found like three sources in the comment below this one.CycoMa (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

King Arthur to Percival: "Try again." --Kent Dominic·(talk) 19:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Definitions of sex

Okay, I went through the sources I added to see some definitions of sex. I am commenting this down to see which one yall approve of.

This source defines sex as something along the lines of.

"Sex: the sexual phenotype of an individual."

this source (on page 112) states this.

"We refer to an individual's sex condition as its state with respect to sexual function, either male or female, but also both male and female (hermaphrodite) or neither male nor female (sexually indeterminate).

this source states this. (keep in mind the link I am presenting is merely a free version.)

"However, it should be noted that male and female sex are more usefully defined by reproductive strategy, rather than by immutable physiological characteristics (Schärer 2017)."

These are the sources I could find on this topic at best. I have more but, I can't check all of them.CycoMa (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

this source from Oxford states this.

"The sum of the characteristics concerned with sexual reproduction and the raising of young, by which males, females, and hermaphrodites may be distinguished." Although I am not sure about this one.CycoMa (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I also found this source.

"The definitions of ‘sex’ and ‘sexes’ vary. Here we define ‘sex’ as the union of gametes and genomes from two individuals (or in some hermaphrodites, from the same individual), and ‘sexes’ (male, female) are defined by the type of gamete an individual produces (see above)."

That is another source.CycoMa (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Or we can also go to Britannica where they state. "Sex, the sum of features by which members of species can be divided into two groups—male and female—that complement each other reproductively."

I am aware Wikipedians aren't the biggest fans of Britannica. But, it does give decent (although very generalized) information.CycoMa (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh it should be mentioned some of these sources may have outdated info.CycoMa (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

And as I stated many times for some reason they are able to define male, female, and hermaphrodite decently. But, they don't give a proper definition of sex itself.CycoMa (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: My suggestion: Use all of that cited stuff to draft your own restatement of what sex is. Post that restatement here. If the restatement is reasonably based one or more cited sources, I can all but guarantee that you'll find a consensus in your favor, and no one will accuse you of WP:OR. As always, my concern is merely that the definition is worded in a semantically sound, topically relevant, accessible way. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 19:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

⇡⇡ THIS. Mathglot (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

A lot of the definitions I presented are already cited in this article as a matter of fact.

Reading through these sources it appears sex is defined by something along the lines of “sexual phenotype” or “reproductive role”.

And the article also hints that as well. CycoMa (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: Please stand down on the baseless WP:OR and WP:NPOV objections regarding the lead

So many contributors (incl. @Mathglot, Crossroads, Plantsurfer, and Kent Dominic:) have proposed viable, practical, unbiased definitions. None of the drafts are intended to satisfy every critic. Let's all keep in mind that whatever definition is proposed need not be a quotation of a published source. Indeed, a practical restatement of a cited source should not be disparaged as WP:OR. And adding one's own style of wording and/or semantic sense need not be disparaged as breaching WP:NPOV. In other words, editors who proffer an edit based on a cited source does not equate to editors' plying of original research, activism, or bias. Upon attainment of an imperfect consensus, please stand down accordingly. Amen? Meanwhile, food for thought:

"Defining sex is much like trying to nail a jellyfish to the wall." - Rosanova v. Playboy Ents., Inc., 411 F. Supp. 440, 443 (S.D. Ga. 1976).

--Kent Dominic·(talk) 19:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I did the research and presented the sources in the earlier discussion. I am starting to think we are coming closer to a consensus. The only concern is that there are so many definitions of sex a lot of them are inconsistent or contradict each other. CycoMa (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I’m gonna add a sex characteristics section

I’m gonna add a sex characteristics section because honestly it kind of makes sense. Also I’m not entirely sure that intersex paragraph belongs in sex determination.

What do y’all think? CycoMa (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

That’s odd for some reason sex characteristics is harder to research. Thought it would be easier to find sources on. CycoMa (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I was honestly hoping there would be encyclopedias that gave a definition of sex characteristics. But for some reason they only think about humans. CycoMa (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Sex: Other odds & ends

My main concern about the article has been its lead. Specifically, I've contended that its lead definition should be stated attributively rather than nominally. The use of the term, "attributive," is not essential to the definition itself. The salient point is that the article mostly uses "sex" (as well as "male" and "female") attributively (i.e. as an adjective) and not as nominally (i.e. as a noun). With belated props to @Newimpartial: his 19 March 2021 edit summary said, "We are defining adjectives here, not nouns." That's been the crux of my point all along.

If there's consensus for "Sex is a trait that determines an individual's reproductive function, male or female, in organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction" (or something essentially similar) as @Crossroads: proposed, my main concern will have been addressed. Moreover, thanks to Crossroads' 13 April 2021 edit of male, the leads of female, male, and the prospective lead for sex would all be semantically aligned along attributive lines. Yet, the remainder of this article occasionally lapses into the use of "sex," "male," and "female" in their nominal senses. E.g.:

• "In mammals, males typically carry an X and a Y chromosome..."
• "Females typically carry two X chromosomes (XX)."
• "Fungi have more complex allelic mating systems in which the sexes are more accurately described as mating types."

Such statements are independently valid as stand-alone assertions but they semantically conflict with the definition in the proposed lead. I'd like to think most readers would either (a) not care about the semantic conflict or (b) not notice the semantic conflict in the first place, but readers with an exceptional semantic eye will find such conflicts to be problematic. By contrast, the article on sexual intercourse is 100% semantically aligned with its nominal use of "sex."

My point with this thread is simply this: Along the semantic lines of indiscriminately/arbitrarily using "sex," "male," and "female" as an adjective (i.e. attributively) versus a noun (i.e. nominally), this article could stand some considerable improvement to avoid attenuation of an intended meaning. If I had more time and more topical interest, I'd offer some edits accordingly. Sadly for me but perhaps fortunately for others, I have neither the time nor interest in doing so. And, concerning the substantive merits of the article, I have absolutely zero observations, recommendations, or resources that I'm willing to contribute. I leave it to other editors to sort out any substantive shortcomings, expansion, omissions, redactions - whatever.

@Newimpartial, Crossroads, SlimVirgin, CycoMa, Plantsurfer, Mathglot, and Anyone else that I've missed: Cheers, and happy editing! --Kent Dominic·(talk) 01:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh my fucking god, would you just knock it off. There is so many facts I want to add this article and you keep pestering me about some fucking lead. I’m trying my very best to be calm but you are pushing me to the limits. CycoMa (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Also how is it defining male and female in a arbitrary way. I literally cited like 7 sources to this damn article about how male and female is defined. CycoMa (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean did you even listen to what I said. If you don’t have sources then you are wasting my time and everyone’s time. CycoMa (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa:, you're out of line. Stick to talking about how to improve the article. If you want to roll your eyes about something, keep it on User talk pages, not here, please. Mathglot (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay but, seriously this whole lead thing is getting annoying. Somebody call an admin, they may help and resolve this issue.CycoMa (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Admins do not resolve content disputes; that's not what they are here for. If you want a form of mediation from an impartial observer, there's WP:MEDIATION, there's third opinion, and there's also other forms of dispute resolution. Calling an admin is likely to call attention to your behavior, so I wouldn't; read WP:BOOMERANG. If you're frustrated, don't worry, it happens to everyone. Take a break, or just shift over to an article that isn't such a hot potato. Mathglot (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Section on sex characteristics

Seriously so many sources talk about sex characteristics but for some reason it’s so hard to find sources on sex characteristics itself. CycoMa (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we already have consensus

Is anybody else getting exhausted over multiple conversations about the definition, regarding what seems (to my view, at least) like increasingly minor points of difference? As Kent said above, we needn't get a *perfect* definition, and compromise is part of what we do here. If we have a lead sentence that is good enough, and nobody has *major* objections to it, then can we just call it a day, say we've got consensus even if nobody thinks it's perfect, and move on? This one sentence is not the only issue in trying to improve the article, and we've spent an awful lot of time on it already. @Crossroads, Kent Dominic, CycoMa, and Plantsurfer: (please ping anybody I forgot)

Here is what we have now (as of rev. 1021152741‎):

Sex is either of two divisions, typically male or female, into which organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction are divided.

I don't think we need a formal Rfc, but if anyone thinks we do, we can reorganize this as one. If you have objections to the current lead sentence, please list them below as briefly as possible, and whether you can live with it as is. This is an attempt to see if we already have consensus, and if not, where the sticking points are. If we find we *do* have consensus, that means we should hit the pause button on further discussions about the first sentence for a while, so we can move on to other things. I'll go first. Mathglot (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: More than my concern about the word "division," I'm not sold on the idea of using "either of two," which is too limiting, given everything that CycoMa has pointed out. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 21:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot and CycoMa: If there's no consensus for "attribute," I'd be just as happy with: "Sex is one or more characteristics, typically male or female, regarding organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction." --Kent Dominic·(talk) 21:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot and CycoMa: And if everyone's stuck on "divisions," then I recommend: "Sex is a phenological division, typically male or female, regarding organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction." <-- Omits needless words. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 21:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Informal survey

This survey is for rev. 1021152741‎ of 05:37, May 3, 2021.

• Acceptable as is – No strong objections. The duplication (divisions...are divided) is a minor annoyance. No objection to attribute, feature, characteristic, aspect instead of division. Otherwise, good to go as is. Mathglot (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• I’m fine with it a little bit, only issue is that some language needs tweaking. But overall it’s fine for the moment. I’m pretty sure most readers would understand what this article is talking about anyway. If a better definition appears we will add it. CycoMa (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa, Mathglot, and Plantsurfer: I'm not 100% sold on equating "sex" and "division" given the ways that "male," "female," and "sexual" are used in the article. I'd be happier with this:

Sex is an attribute, typically identified as male or female, that defines the phenotype of 95-99% of the organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction.  

That's not original research. That's a restatement of published sources. Five of the terms used in that restatement are internally sourced and hyperlinked. @CycoMa: Two of the items are your own sources (already in the article) regarding the 95% and 99% figures. In the end, "sex" and "sexual" are applied with equivalent attributive/adjectival meaning throughout the majority of the article. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 20:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kent Dominic: That statistic is talking about animals not all species. That statistic doesn’t touch on plants or fungi.

Also that statistic is talking about gonochorism. That basically means an organism is either male or female and doesn’t change it's sex. Some sequential hermaphrodites are born female and change to male and the other way around.

As we have said many times when this article talks about sex is talking about sex across almost all living things.

I think division is just a good way to simply things down. CycoMa (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

My bad if I misread the stats. Anyway, if you have stats/sources that assert what percentage of species are identified primarily in terms of male/female versus something else, please post them for consideration. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 21:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Please, just *brief* comments here, about where you see the sticking points. I was hoping to keep the "Survey" section to very brief comments to see whether we are at consensus (currently appears like we are not) and just identifying where the sticking points are, and not trying to resolve them here. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• Acceptable as is - no real objections, duplication of "division/divided" is of minor concern to me. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Given the lack of agreement so far, it looks like this survey is heading to a "no consensus". Perhaps this group of five discussants who have been very active lately, is too small a group to reach a consensus, and we should move towards an Rfc. But let's wait and see what other comments are in the offing. Even if an Rfc is needed, this will be a valuable discussion if it points out where the sticking points are, as that will help us properly formulate an Rfc question. Mathglot (talk)

If this doesn't reach a consensus, then I would be inclined to try WP:MEDIATION next, before trying an Rfc, which could drag on. Pinging User:Robert McClenon just as a heads-up; we're not there yet, and perhaps one won't be needed. Mathglot (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we're not as far away as I thought. Kent, I missed your comments above the #Survey section; maybe this can still work here. Lets wait for remaining editors to weigh in. Mathglot (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

So far Kent is the only one really objecting to the status quo in the survey. But I'd like to bring up again my suggestion from above: "Sex is a phenotypic trait, male or female, into which organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction are divided." (Hermaphrodites are covered since they have male and female together in a single body.) If not, I'm happy with the current one. And I'd like to avoid dispute resolution. We have enough participants already; it just gets more confusing and time consuming bringing in more people, who may not be familiar with the issues. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, to set the record straight, Plantsurfer raised some issues after the period of quiescence, not me. I seconded the problematic issues, seeing as they were raised. Crossroads, your initial draft edit was substantively fine but semantically defective given that it was superb as a stand-alone definition but in conflict with its semantic use in the rest of the article. CycoMa criticized your draft as WP:OR - a criticism that was not apropos IMHO. I emended your draft semantically. Mathglot replaced my emendment substantively. My qualms about his replacement are less stylistic (i.e. the pleonastic "division ... divided" verbiage) than semantic since the article mostly uses "sex" in a characteristic sense (i.e. technically an attributive sense regardless of how the term is getting short shrift in this discussion). So, indeed - "Sex is a phenotypic trait, male or female, into which organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction are divided" is an outstanding iteration, semantically speaking, as it conforms to the majority of the article's subsequent mentions of sex, male, and female. I.e. trait, characteristic, and attribute all entail the same semantic usage re. its lexical category. Just one thing: For CycoMa's sake, I would hasten to add "typically male or female" to your draft but I wouldn't quibble without it since I doubt most readers are initially interested in the non-male/female varieties of sex. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 06:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps my suggestion of phenotypic trait may be too hardcore; also concede that the article doesn't use that genetic language elsewhere, but I would like to see the article using something approaching mainstream biological terminology rather than the office filing system terminology of "category" or "division". Attribute is not a word used much by biologists either. A term that is widely used by biologists to describe features or differences between individuals is "character" or "characteristic". I oppose the language of division . . . divided. For a start, in many organisms the characteristic is reversed as a normal feature of development or in response to environmental change, and some plant species may first be male, then hermaphrodite and end up female, all in their lifetime. Others mentioned in the article change from year to year. It is therefore NOT a division. I also argue the case for the use of "typically male or female" or alternatively simply adding "most" in front of eukaryotes. All eukaryotes are not the same, and it does no harm to readers to reveal that to them. It is our job to represent the facts, not to cherry pick the ones readers would like! End rant. So to cut to the chase -

I would prefer the following form of the sentence:

Sex is a trait expressed as male or female in humans and most other eukaryotes that determines an individual's reproductive function.

I could agree to the following form of the sentence:

Sex is a characteristic (an attribute if you absolutely must), expressed as male or female in humans and most other eukaryotes that determines an individual's reproductive function.

Plantsurfer 09:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I like "trait" or "phenotypic trait"; even with the latter, people can simply click the wikilink for a definition. It's no more technical than "eukaryote". But "trait" is fine. I don't see what the issue is with "organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction" rather than "in humans and most other eukaryotes", though. Not only does this avoid the highly technical term "eukaryote", but it also avoids putting undue weight on humans. So, like this perhaps: Sex is a trait that determines an individual's reproductive function, male or female, in organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads I approve of that! Plantsurfer 22:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

So do I! (For anyone not yet on board, "trait," "characteristic," "attribute," or "quality..." take your pick.) --Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with trait, and support Crossroad's latest. Somebody pinch me, have we really found consensus? Mathglot (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

So, @Crossroads, Plantsurfer, and Mathglot: Does 3/5 agreement = consensus? If so, who does the honors? And when? I'm not up on the protocols. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 07:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm seeing 5/5, did I count wrong? I don't see anyone disagreeing with Crossroads's version. There's no fixed answer to your question, but if we wait a copla days and the discussion quiesces, then probably anyone can do it. Mathglot (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I finally raised the blade and made the change - please remain calm. There may be some fallout to deal with, but presumably we can handle that without drama. The new sentence omits the note "". I think that topic should be raised in the body of the article if needed, not in the lead. Plantsurfer 09:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we're  Done. Well, that was gratifying; thanks to all for valuable suggestions and discussion. Mathglot (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Well said from someone who shares my sick sense of satire. I mean "sardonicism." No, wait - let me check the sources to see what I mean while I check for red marks from being rightly slapped in my cheeky face for not letting the sleeping dog lie. "Logophile." Ha! (Did I spell it right?) --Kent Dominic·(talk) 05:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)