Newimpartial (talk | contribs) |
Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30) Tag: paws [2.2] |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{skip to talk}} |
|||
{{pp-vandalism}} |
|||
{{Talk header}} |
{{Talk header}} |
||
{{contentious topics/talk notice|gg}} |
|||
{{skip to bottom}} |
|||
{{to do}} |
|||
{{censor}} |
{{censor}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1= |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia|}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Biology |importance=Top}} |
||
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=top}} |
|||
{{WP1.0 |v0.5=pass |core=yes |class=b |importance=top |category=Natsci}}{{WikiProject Physiology |class=B |importance=Top |field=reproduction}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Physiology |importance=Top |field=reproduction}} |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{banner holder |collapsed=yes |1= |
|||
{{press|date=August 17, 2009|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Wikipedia-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html|title=The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008|org=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|url2=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi-95ygemag|title2=Sending Drinks|date2=May 15, 2021|org2=[[Saturday Night Live]]}} |
{{press|date=August 17, 2009|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Wikipedia-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html|title=The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008|org=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|url2=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi-95ygemag|title2=Sending Drinks|date2=May 15, 2021|org2=[[Saturday Night Live]]}} |
||
{{All time pageviews|123}} |
|||
{{Backwards copy|title=Physiological Psychology: Complementary Course of B.Sc Counselling Psychology |year=2014 |org=Calicut University |url=http://www.universityofcalicut.info/SDE/Physiological_Psychology_Reading_Material_on19May2016.pdf |id=212735904}} |
|||
{{section sizes}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Sex/Archive index|mask=Talk:Sex/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}} |
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Sex/Archive index|mask=Talk:Sex/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}} |
||
{{Vital article|level=3|topic=Science|class=B}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
||
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
||
|counter = |
|counter = 11 |
||
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
||
|minthreadstoarchive = 0 |
|minthreadstoarchive = 0 |
||
|algo = old(30d) |
|algo = old(30d) |
||
|archive = Talk:Sex/Archive %(counter)d |
|archive = Talk:Sex/Archive %(counter)d |
||
}} |
|||
{{Backwards copy|title=Physiological Psychology: Complementary Course of B.Sc Counselling Psychology |year=2014 |org=Calicut University |url=http://www.universityofcalicut.info/SDE/Physiological_Psychology_Reading_Material_on19May2016.pdf |id=212735904}} |
|||
{{Annual readership}} |
|||
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=30|units=days }} |
|||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|||
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
== |
== RFC: Definition of Sex == |
||
{{rfc top|The outcome of the RfC is a '''rough consensus to use the reproductive definition''' in this article. |
|||
Several editors suggested that the content of the article reflects this usage, though some pointed out that this article gets into multifactoral discussion. Overall this line of discussion, centered around [[MOS:LEAD]], suggests that despite some coverage of other topics, this article's focus is around the reproductive definition |
|||
In [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Transitions_Between_Sexual_Systems/0rWZDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 this book] on page 1 it mentions how distinctions between sexual systems like trioecy, dioecy, androdrioecy and other sexual systems. It mentions how distinctions between these sexual systems aren’t always clear. |
|||
The book also goes more in depth on sexual systems and I believe some of these facts should be mentioned here.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 05:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC) |
|||
There was discussion about what reliable sources say; editors note that many sources that suggest a multifactoral definition do exist, however multiple editors believe that those sources were largely focused around topics other than the one covered by this article, especially with a focus on humans. Overall, this discussion—implicitly focused around the [[WP:RS]] guideline, and related policies like [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:V]] and so on—suggests that the latter evaluation has broader support. |
|||
== Sex differences repetition == |
|||
Some editors of various opinions relied on their personal opinions or expertise on what the meaning of the word was. Given the amount discussion centered around PAG (including use of reliable sources), I've weighed such opinions or personal expertise appropriately. |
|||
With a recent addition by {{u|CycoMa}} the beginning of [[Sex#Sex differences|§Sex differences]] now has three sentences in a row making roughly the same point: <div style="color:green">{{blist|Biologists agree that...|It has even been said that...|It is also considered to be...}}</div> The sentences refer to sex being primarily determined by gamete type as being "fundamental", explaining "all the differences", and "the universal difference". CycoMa and others, can we agree that it's best to consolidate those sentences? Would it be better to remove one or two? [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]]) 04:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC) |
|||
There was concern about canvassing, evaluating the concerns including checking the edit history of many individual editors it seems likely that canvassing did in small part affect the discussion. This does not mean we can't, with care, find a rough consensus in the discussion. However, note that the in-depth of this discussion is far less "one-sided" than a raw !vote tally would suggest. On the other hand, please don't take the wrong message from this: canvassing concerns were not one-sided. I evaluated both explicit and implicit concerns neutrally, not taking any at face value. |
|||
:maybe I should remove the mention of it being the first sex difference. I mean come on the evolution section makes it’s pretty obvious on that notion.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 04:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC) |
|||
There are some more notes from the discussion: |
|||
:I’ll admit I went a little overboard on that.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 04:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC) |
|||
# Some editors desire to further disambiguate within the hatnote of this article, the primary suggestion being to link [[gender]], though there were other suggestions. |
|||
:I’m also gonna remove unnecessary details that are obvious or already addressed in the article. Like the article explained that anisogamy is the difference in gamete size.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 04:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC) |
|||
# Some editors suggested to change this into a disambiguation page. There are suggestions that the article title itself is a source of disagreement, and that turning the page into a disambiguation page would make it easier for readers to find what they are looking for. Some editors suggested the current article is a primary topic for the article title, while others disagreed. |
|||
# There were also suggestions to turn this into a [[WP:broad concept article|broad concept article]]. |
|||
== No universal difference == |
|||
Despite the amount of discussion, none of these points were supported or rejected sufficiently to suggest any further consensus. |
|||
<small>([[Wikipedia:Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small> —[[User:Siroxo|siro]][[User talk:Siroxo|''χ'']][[Special:Contributions/Siroxo|o]] 10:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{u|Crossroads}} honestly I had no issue with you removing that. I’ll admit it was kind of undue weight, three reliable sources cited in this article have argued there is a universal difference. |
|||
}} |
|||
{{not a ballot}} |
|||
I tried looking for more sources on the claim of whether or not there is no universal difference. And that was the only source.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 06:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Biological sex in humans == |
|||
A couple of months ago, @[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] blanked the long-standing definition of biological sex in humans. It said: |
|||
In humans, biological sex is determined by five factors present at birth: the presence or absence of a Y chromosome (which alone determines the individual's ''genetic sex''), the type of [[Gonad|gonads]], the [[Sex hormone|sex hormones]], the internal reproductive anatomy (such as the [[uterus]] in females), and the external genitalia.<ref name="KnoxSchacht2011">{{cite book|last1=Knox|first1=David|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=iVOXAp27iQkC&pg=PT64|title=Choices in Relationships: An Introduction to Marriage and the Family|last2=Schacht|first2=Caroline|date=10 October 2011|publisher=Cengage Learning|isbn=978-1-111-83322-0|edition=11th|pages=64–66|access-date=2 July 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150925103218/https://books.google.com/books?id=iVOXAp27iQkC&pg=PT64|archive-date=25 September 2015|url-status=live|name-list-style=vanc}}</ref><ref name="Raveenthiran2017">{{cite journal|vauthors=Raveenthiran V|year=2017|title=Neonatal Sex Assignment in Disorders of Sex Development: A Philosophical Introspection|journal=Journal of Neonatal Surgery|volume=6|issue=3|pages=58|doi=10.21699/jns.v6i3.604|pmc=5593477|pmid=28920018|doi-access=free}}</ref> |
|||
The stated reason appears to be dissatisfaction with the sources, which were (1) a university textbook, and (2) a source added by CycoMa. |
|||
There are, of course many other sources that make the same basic point with minor variations in the wording: |
|||
* While we tend to think of sex as a binary (either male or female) determined by looking at a baby's genitals, the evidence shows that sex is determined by multiple biological factors including chromosomes, hormones, gonads and secondary sex characteristics, as well as external genitalia. ... It is important to remember that sex and gender are two different things: a child or young person's biological sex may be different from their gender identity.[https://www.google.com/books/edition/Crash_Course_Paediatrics/yK6LDwAAQBAJ?pg=PA80] |
|||
* Biologists have never been under the illusion that genes and chromosomes are all there is to the biology of sex. Today, as in Morgan's time, researchers acknowledge that human biological “sex” is not diagnosed by any single factor, but is the result of a choreography of genes, hormones, gonads, genitals, and secondary sex characters. Today, academic sexologists typically distinguish between chromosomal sex, gonadal sex, hormonal sex, genital sex, and sexual identity.[https://www.google.com/books/edition/Sex_Itself/ze8LAQAAQBAJ?pg=PA8] |
|||
* Sex is defined biologically.... While an individuals karotype is used to classify DSDs, the karotype does not define one's sex. Phenotypical anatomic findings (e.g., ovary/testis, clitoris/glans penis, labial majora/scrotum, labia minora/penile shaft, etc.) more properly define one's sex...[https://www.google.com/books/edition/Handbook_of_Diagnostic_Endocrinology/-dLVDwAAQBAJ] |
|||
* BIOLOGICAL SEX Sex determination exists on a spectrum, with genitals, chromosomes, gonads, and hormones all playing a role.[https://www.google.com/books/edition/Doping_Performance_Enhancing_Drugs_and_H/cAYsDgAAQBAJ?pg=PA136] |
|||
* biological sex as determined by chromosomes, hormones, gonads and the formations of the internal and external genitals.[https://www.google.com/books/edition/Intersex_Matters/pJc3DwAAQBAJ?pg=PA27] |
|||
* Biological sex involves characteristics of chromosomes, hormones, gonads, genitalia, and internal reproductive organs.[https://www.google.com/books/edition/Supporting_Transgender_Autistic_Youth_an/4_qXDwAAQBAJ?pg=PA41] |
|||
* physiological markers of biological sex (chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive structures, external genitalia, hormones, and secondary sex characteristics)[https://www.google.com/books/edition/Psychology_for_Sustainability/QZYiEAAAQBAJ?pg=PT218] |
|||
* Physiological maleness or femaleness, or biological sex, is indicated by the sex chromosomes, hormonal balance, and genital anatomy. |
|||
NB that the first in the list is a medical school textbook published by [[Elsevier]], so there can't really be any claims that "medical" or "biological" or "MEDRS" sources don't define this term. |
|||
[[Biological sex]] redirects here, so this page needs a definition of how biological sex is determined in humans, and specifically to differentiate biological sex from the narrower concept of chromosomal sex. Genes kick things off, but in birds and mammals, the hormone-producing gonads turn out to be more important in the end. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:{{u|WhatamIdoing}} look I removed that book because this article is a biology article. None of the individuals who written that book are biologists and do they ever study biology. |
|||
:This article is a biology only article, which means this article is biological sources only. Barely any of the sources you added are biology sources. |
|||
:This article is not gonna be some place for activists to spread their propaganda on.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 02:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:To help you understand the issues at hand here, is what the articles are saying. |
|||
:Regarding claims like this |
|||
:{{Font color|green|text=BIOLOGICAL SEX Sex determination exists on a spectrum, with genitals, chromosomes, gonads, and hormones all playing a role.}} |
|||
:that source is talking about sex determination. There is a difference between sex determination and sex itself. |
|||
:[https://www.google.com/books/edition/Supporting_Transgender_Autistic_Youth_an/4_qXDwAAQBAJ?pg=PA41 this ] is not a reliable source for an article like this. It's not medical or biological. Not to mention it's from a independent publishing company. |
|||
:[https://www.google.com/books/edition/Intersex_Matters/pJc3DwAAQBAJ?pg=PA27 This source] is not reliable for an article like this. It's an article on sociology. |
|||
:[https://www.google.com/books/edition/Sex_Itself/ze8LAQAAQBAJ?pg=PA8 This source] is not reliable for an article like this, it's sociology. |
|||
:In general medical and sociological sources are excluded from this article. Sure there are sociobiologists and medical professionals who are both doctors and biologists. But, none of the sources provided have knowledge in the field of biology.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 03:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:And even if we consider the idea of medical sources being including. A majority of the sources you presented are not medical sources either.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 02:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::Which well-attended talk page discussion established the consensus that this is a "biology only article"? Or is there a wider consensus-established policy that designates articles such as this one "biology only"? Absent such a well-established consensus, I feel safe in assuming that this article, like all Wikipedia articles, should summarize with appropriate weight what the reliable sources say about the subject. You might argue against the reliability of the sources, or suggest that they represent such a minority viewpoint that inclusion is unwarranted, but I can't agree that only biology sources are welcome. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]]) 02:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{u|Firefangledfeathers}} look at the wiki projects this article is linked to. |
|||
:::Not to mention this article is talking about sex across various species. It makes no sense to go in depth on humans regarding the topic. |
|||
::: Unless humans are some special case treasured by God, sure let's give five paragraphs on sex in humans.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 03:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::Thankfully, linking WikiProjects at the article talk page does not limit the variety of reliable sources we can rely upon. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]]) 03:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Sources are only reliable depending on the context of the article. The sources she presented don't for the context of this article. |
|||
:::::None of the individuals she cited have knowledge regarding the biology of sex or sexual reproduction.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 03:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I won't stand in the way of you questioning the reliability of the sources, perhaps by questioning the expertise of the authors, but I can't support discounting a medical textbook because its authors aren't biologists. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]]) 03:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::This article isn't a medical article and it never was a medical article. So medical sources don't fit the context of the article. Please understand you don't have to much knowledge in biology to be a doctor. |
|||
:::::::Also much of the individuals she cited are sociologists. This article is taking about biological sex which means we need sources that know about the biological side of the topic. You wouldn’t cite a technician for an article on history would you? |
|||
:::::::Like I said either it’s possible to be both a biologist and sociologist or be both a doctor and a biologist.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 03:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I have no strong desire to convince you that your viewpoint is wrong. I hope that {{u|WhatamIdoing}} and others will take this as a note that I am likely to support the inclusion of content sourced to [[WP:MEDRS]]. If others have reasons of policy or consensus to state that this is a biology-only article, I would be happy to hear them. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]]) 03:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::@[[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]], I agree with you. I certainly have never seen any significant discussions that declared the subject to be "biology only". I have seen this single editor make such declarations, but I haven't seen anyone else agree with him. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{u|WhatamIdoing}} didn’t you say that this article is about biological sex? If you aware that this article about biological sex, why haven’t you presented any biological sources, do you honestly think sociology sources are appropriate.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 04:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I have never said that only sources from the academic field of biology should be accepted in this article. I support this article maintaining the [[Sex and gender distinction]], and being about sex rather than gender, but that's not the same thing as requiring only biology textbooks and biology journals. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Please understand the whole [[WP:CONTEXTMATTERS]]. The sources WhatamIdoing just don’t fit the context of this article. It’s that simple, end of argument.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 03:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Like it amazes me y’all aren’t understanding what I am getting out here. You are aware this article is about biological sex. |
|||
But think sociological sources are appropriate for an article like this.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 03:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:If the article "is about biological sex", then where is the definition of "biological sex" in this article? |
|||
:That's really what I'm asking for. It really ought to contain a definition/explanation of the differences between each of these terms: |
|||
:* [[anatomical sex]] |
|||
:* [[biological sex]] |
|||
:* [[chromosomal sex]] |
|||
:* [[genetic sex]] |
|||
:* [[hormonal sex]] |
|||
:* [[physiological sex]] |
|||
:I'd prefer that this be presented in human context, because that's the context for most readers and most incoming links. But I'm really just looking for the article to contain the definitions. I don't really care what sources get used (as long as they're reliable). I don't really care what the definitions are (as long as they're verifiable and DUE). I just want people who click on these links and end up at this page to be able to figure out what these terms mean. "It's that simple, end of argument." [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:{{u|WhatamIdoing}} it already gives a definition of sex in the lead. |
|||
:{{Font color|green|text=I'd prefer that this be presented in human context, because that's the context for most readers and most incoming links.}} no we shouldn’t, did you even pay attention to what I said, this article is about sex across various species. Humans aren’t even special anyway, from a evolutionary standpoint we are merely just primates. |
|||
:{{Font color|green|text=I don't really care what sources get used (as long as they're reliable). I don't really care what the definitions are (as long as they're verifiable and DUE).}} |
|||
:Did you read the context matters I shown you, reliability is about context, I’m surprised you don’t understand why the sources you provided aren’t reliable.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 05:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::Sure, let's talk about CONTEXTMATTERS, since you seem to be interested in it. Here's what it says: |
|||
::{{xt|The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.}} |
|||
::Let's take it point by point: |
|||
::* {{xt|Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.}} |
|||
::** Notice that it says that the source has to be compared to the statement being made, and to make sure that it's appropriate for the content of that specific statement – not whether it's appropriate for the article. |
|||
::* {{xt|In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.}} |
|||
::** Med school textbooks are considered some of the most fact-checked, legally-analyzed, and writing-scrutinized of all sources that get cited on Wikipedia, so that's obviously okay. |
|||
::* {{xt|Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible.}} |
|||
::** It's not information provided in passing, so we're clear there, too. It's definitely related to the principal topic of the publication. NB "the publication", not "the Wikipedia article". This means that if you want to write a sentence about the definition of biological sex in humans, then you get a source that talks about biological sex, and not one that mostly talks about a politician, or a non-profit organization, or a consumer gadget. This is a medical school textbook talking about how to diagnose situations related to biological sex, so we're clear on that point, too. |
|||
::* {{xt|Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.}} |
|||
::** This means that you don't make stuff up, or stretch a few points, or SYNTH it up from a few other things, and then pretend it's in the cited source. Since I've provided you with direct quotations, we're clear on that point, too. |
|||
::So: Yes, I know what CONTEXTMATTERS means. Maybe now you do, too. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::Look you clearly don’t understand what I’m trying to get at here. Medical professionals are not experts in biology and neither are sociologists. |
|||
:::Seriously it feels like I’m repeating myself here. |
|||
:::You said that this article is about biological sex, yet you present sources that aren’t even biology text books. |
|||
:::Look a medical text book may be okay for a class in medicine, but it isn’t for biology.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 05:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::I disagree. So does MEDRS. So does [[WP:RS]]. A graduate-level textbook is a reliable source. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::Like you are talking about biological sex in humans when this article has been talking about biological sex in various species from all animals, plants, and fungi. |
|||
:::Adding a definition exclusive to humans is technically undue weight to this article.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 05:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::Excluding humans, when so many sources talk about nothing except humans, is what would be "technically undue weight". The definition of due weight is talking a lot about something if the sources talk a lot about it, and talking a little bit about it if the sources talk a little bit about it. The definition of undue weight is '''not''' treating every species equally. See [[WP:GEVAL]] for the prohibition on treating every aspect equally when the sources talk more about one than the others. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Like {{u|WhatamIdoing}} answer me this question, this article is about biological sex? Am I right on that? |
|||
:If you want articles for anatomical sex or chromosomal sex. Make them, but that isn’t appropriate here. Because some species don’t even have sex chromosomes or genetic sex determination.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 05:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::Anatomical sex and chromosomal sex are parts of biological sex. |
|||
::Whether this article is "about biological sex" depends on whether "biological aspects of sexual reproduction" means something different to you than "biological sex". If you consider the meaning of ''biological sex'' in the question, "What is this baby's biological sex?", then that has a lot to do with anatomical and chromosomal sex, but it's just a narrow piece in the overall subject of biological aspects of sexual reproduction. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Buddy it’s inappropriate to go in depth on stuff like that here. Some males don’t have penises, some species don’t have sex chromosomes at all. If you want some this information included put it somewhere else. Also there are two sources that kind of address why classifying biological sex by anatomy is problematic. |
|||
Not to mention some of the claims in those sources are undue weight to the claims presented in this article. Notice the contradictions.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 05:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm "ma'am", not "buddy". The definition of biological sex in humans very concisely and directly (not just "kind of") explained why defining biological sex by anatomy alone is problematic. Now that you've removed that brief explanation, the article does not clearly communicate this information. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::<del>[Here’s a free version]</del><small>(Copyvio link removed)</small> of one of the sources presented in this article. It communicates a decent idea why classify by chromosomes or anatomy is problematic. |
|||
::[http://people.exeter.ac.uk/njr208/Kokko%20Jennions%20Chpt%206%20Sex%20differences%20in%20parental%20care%20sent%20March%2014%20.pdf Here is another one].[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 05:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::Although two reliable sources do indeed define sex by phenotype.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 06:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::[https://www.toddkshackelford.com/downloads/Holub-Shackelford-Gonochorism-EACB-2021.pdf Here’s another source] that gives an idea on what male and female are.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 06:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::{{u|WhatamIdoing}} at least look at the links I am providing here. Before making judgment.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 06:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::Okay let’s be slow on this.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 06:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::Also me removing that one source was supported by another user [[Talk:Sex/Archive_9#Sex_determination|here.]][[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 06:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::I’m gonna this bold so people understand what I’m trying to say. '''I am not saying we shouldn’t cite medical sources at all. All I am saying, is that aren’t the most ideal sources regarding this article.''' |
|||
::Source a source discussing a sexual disorder would be okay. But, if you want a source for evolution I would prefer a textbook in biology class. |
|||
::But, anyway I’m not sure the claims in those sources you provided are due weight or know everything in the topic at hand.(To be fair that’s every source.) [[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 06:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Just in case I’m throwing [[https://academic.oup.com/edrv/article/42/3/219/6159361 this source]] out just in case.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 07:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Also regarding me removing that sentence that claimed sex was determined by five factors. That second source didn’t claim it was determined by five factors either, just clarifying that detail.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 07:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Also by the way there is a difference between sex determination and biological sex. Let’s not confuse the two.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 07:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*I do not accept that these criticisms of a reliable source are valid because I've seen no evidence that they come from anyone with a PhD is Source Evaluation and Quality Assessment. [[User:MPants at work|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MPants at work|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 12:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{u|MPants at work}} do you not realize how the sources she presented contradict each other?[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 16:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:{{u|CycoMa}} They do not contradict each other, and I do not find any argument you have put forth here to be even remotely compelling. Your editing in this topic strikes me as being motivated by a desire to conform our articles to your own views, rather than a desire to improve our articles, regardless of whether such improvements support your views. Note that this is not just based on this instance, but upon prior instances of you appearing on noticeboards and on the talk pages of related topics. |
|||
:I can't and won't speak to your motivations, here. But I can and will advise you to stop, take a moment, and ask yourself ''why you are giving this impression to other editors.'' [[User:MPants at work|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MPants at work|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 16:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::{{u|MPants at work}} answer me this quick question, is this article about biological sex? If it is why are you getting on to me for stating that biology sources are preferred for an article like this, like you are just making accusations here.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 16:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::Because you're drawing a false distinction between "biology sources" and "medical sources" that doesn't exist for our purposes, except in your mind. |
|||
:::Now go answer the question I posed you. I'm not responding to walls of text posted instead of directly addressing my comments. [[User:MPants at work|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MPants at work|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 16:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{u|MPants at work}} I never said I we shouldn’t use medical sources in general, another user named Crossroads [[Talk:Sex/Archive_8#Sex_determination_in_humans|He supported the source I removed.]] What I am trying to say is that medical sources and biological sources are clearly not the same thing. I mean I cited a few medical sources in here too. Like you guys are misunderstanding what I am trying to say on the matter.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 16:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::You are still not answering my question. [[User:MPants at work|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MPants at work|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 16:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{u|MPants at work}} okay you asked why I am giving an impression to other editors. Are you talking the impression of me being biased? Just asking to make sure I completely understand your question.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 16:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Yes. Ask yourself why multiple other editors feel that you are engaged in a motivated to change what Wikipedia says to match your own views. Answer that question. You don't need to tell me the answer, but you '''do''' need to stop pinging me, and it would be helpful to your own case if you were to stop posting walls of text and multiple responses to everyone arguing with you. [[User:MPants at work|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MPants at work|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 17:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Look all I want to do is to make sure information presented here on Wikipedia is reliable. I mean why do you think I go to Wikiprojects and Noticeboards on this a lot. Because I want information to be reliable. If a lot of editors said that the source I presented was unreliable I don’t cite it and just move on. |
|||
::::::::Also as I said before some of the things I removed or changed, some of these changes had no controversy. Like no one had issues with me removing [https://books.google.com/books?id=iVOXAp27iQkC&pg=PT64 this source.] When I removed it there was no controversy. |
|||
::::::::Not to mention there are certain things I remove that I’m not even proud of removing, like I didn’t like removing [https://books.google.com/books?id=iVOXAp27iQkC&pg=PT64 this source], like I felt kind of guilty for removing in general. Yes I will admit I was very biased in the past but, I’m more neutral regarding this topic. So please don’t assume I’m changing things to fit my worldview.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 17:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::MjolnirPants, there's no "multiple other editors" that I see. Please [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 05:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Crossroads I have a grasp on what he is talking about, let’s just say I had a few interactions with him regarding this topic. And honestly at this point I think I’m used to people saying that about me.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 05:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::{{u|Crossroads}}, see [[Special:Diff/1033301093#Activists/propaganda]] and [[WP:FTN#To amuse you]] both of which are about this exact discussion, and you might also note that I've been discussing the ways CycoMa's editing comes across to others, not accusing them of POV pushing. And I happen to know that you've come across others saying some very similar things. So... Please [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. |
|||
:::::::::{{u|CycoMa}}, please tone it down a couple notches. You write very long comments, respond multiple times to individual edits, and your tone at talk frequently seems to be agitated, as if the state of our articles personally offends you. |
|||
:::::::::I'm not making assumptions about your frame of mind or your beliefs, because much (not all, but enough that "POV pusher" is not my preferred conclusion) of your actual article space edits which I've looked at seem pretty good, and I can't read your emotional state from here. But the impression is given, and as you've no doubt noticed from your reception at RSN and other noticeboards, it's not just one or two of us who've gotten that impression. |
|||
:::::::::It all makes it difficult for others to engage with you. All I've asked is for you to write fewer, shorter comments in discussions like this, so we can deal with one thing at a time. I can see from your editing history that you tend to have a pretty narrow focus and tend to stay at one article for a while before moving on, but most of us are active on multiple articles at a time, and can't follow a discussion with multiple replies to our every comment and a half-dozen points on every issue. [[User:MPants at work|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MPants at work|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 22:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::{{u|MPants at work}} what do you mean by my article space edits? I never heard anyone use that term.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 02:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::See [[Wikipedia:Namespace]]. MPants was complimenting your your edits to articles. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::Not to mention earlier editors on this page had no issue with certain changes I made. I mean Crossroads supported the removal of the claim that sex in humans is determined by five factors.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 16:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Let help you understand the issues with the sources she presented. |
|||
One of her sources said this. |
|||
{{Font color|green|text=While we tend to think of sex as a binary (either male or female) determined by looking at a baby's genitals, the evidence shows that sex is determined by multiple biological factors including chromosomes, hormones, gonads and secondary sex characteristics, as well as external genitalia. ... It is important to remember that sex and gender are two different things: a child or young person's biological sex may be different from their gender identity.[1]|link=}} |
|||
However, [https://academic.oup.com/edrv/article/42/3/219/6159361 this reliable source ] says this on the matter says this. |
|||
{{Font color|green|text=Sex is a biological concept. Asexual reproduction (cloning) is routine in microorganisms and some plants, but most vertebrates and all mammals have 2 distinct sexes. Even single-cell organisms have “mating types” to facilitate sexual reproduction. Only cells belonging to different mating types can fuse together to reproduce sexually (2, 3). Sexual reproduction allows for exchange of genetic information and promotes genetic diversity. The classical biological definition of the 2 sexes is that females have ovaries and make larger female gametes (eggs), whereas males have testes and make smaller male gametes (sperm); the 2 gametes fertilize to form the zygote, which has the potential to become a new individual. The advantage of this simple definition is first that it can be applied universally to any species of sexually reproducing organism. Second, it is a bedrock concept of evolution, because selection of traits may differ in the 2 sexes. Thirdly, the definition can be extended to the ovaries and testes, and in this way the categories—female and male—can be applied also to individuals who have gonads but do not make gametes... Biological sex is dichotomous because of the different roles of each sex in reproduction. For scientific research, it is important to define biological sex and distinguish it from other meanings.}} |
|||
Do you not realize how this is a clear contradiction, I mean good lord. [[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 16:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Also if feels like none of you are even trying to listen to what I’m trying to say here. Y’all are fully aware this article is about about biological sex but, apparently activist sources from non-biologists is appropriate.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 16:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Please read [[WP:BLUDGEON]]. [[User:MPants at work|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MPants at work|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 16:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Okay everyone I went to Wikiproject Medicine and they said that medical sources are fine. So I guess some of the sources WhatamIdoing are fine for this article. |
|||
Medical sources are okay for this article, but let’s see if all of them are okay. |
|||
Maybe a subsection on Sex differences in medicine would be nice for this article.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 17:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
But anyway I still don’t think all the sources she is presenting are ideal for an article like this. Some of the sources may be better somewhere else on a different article.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 18:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Oppose. Properly cited peer-reviewed observations from medical scientists published in legitimate publications have as much right to be included here as publications from biologists (whatever the definition of that is these days). Some of the medics I know have had a longer and more rigorous education in organismal biology than many biologists, many of whom major in DNA. Please don't try to perpetuate prejudice between scientists here. Biology is a huge topic, and there is no such thing today as a biologist who is an expert in the entire subject. We are all specialists of one kind or another, and it essential for proper understanding and consensus that there is no class or topic warring. [[user:Plantsurfer|<span style="background-color:green;color:cyan">Plant</span><span style="background-color:cyan;color:blue;">surfer</span>]] 19:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Yeah I guess your right some topics are very broad especially the topic for this article.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 19:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
But as I said before the sources that she is presenting contradict the sources presented here, I mean look at the definition of biological sex here and look at the definition she is presenting.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 19:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Maybe we could add a section that gives some clarification to all this.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 19:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Don't misunderstand me - I do broadly support your view that these articles must support the ''scientific'' facts, but I don't give a monkey's what kind of scientist established the facts, and I urge you not to focus on that either. It is arrogant of us as wiki editors to be making value judgements about which journal or book publisher can be regarded as a reliable source and checking whether the author had a PhD or not. That is not our job. Much better that we evaluate whether the facts as reported are consistent with scientific consensus or not. [[user:Plantsurfer|<span style="background-color:green;color:cyan">Plant</span><span style="background-color:cyan;color:blue;">surfer</span>]] 19:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:What exactly is "the definition of biological sex here"? I do not see any sentence in this article that sounds like "Biological sex is..." |
|||
:Also, I think you'll find it more functional to consider differences in emphasis, rather than trying to declare that some of the sources are "wrong" or "contradictory". Consider this: You quote a source that says "all mammals have 2 distinct sexes". This is basically true. Also, no matter how long you wait, a pack of [[Mule|Mules]] won't ever produce any mule babies. Quite a number of the ones that you'd have guessed were male produce no gametes at all. Others don't produce functional gametes. We could conclude from this reality that the source is "wrong", but I think it would be more relevant to say that the source is incomplete. It's only talking about what matters in evolutionary terms, which is only one part of the story. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::I guess some of these sources have some use here, like some of the psychology sources may be useful in sex differences in behavior, or the medical sources may be useful in a subject about sex differences in medicine. |
|||
::But some of the sources she presented appear to belong somewhere else. |
|||
::Like, I don’t see much use in the sociological sources she presented, I think those may belong somewhere else maybe at [[sex and gender distinction]] or they maybe better at an article like [[gender]]. |
|||
::Just gonna throw this detail but sources like [1], [2], [4], and [5] are clearly talking about sex determination. If you like you could put those sources in [[sex determination]] or [[XY sex-determination system]]. |
|||
::With regards to this argument, {{Font color|green|text=Also, no matter how long you wait, a pack of [[Mule|Mules]] won't ever produce any mule babies. Quite a number of the ones that you'd have guessed were male produce no gametes at all. Others don't produce functional gametes.}} |
|||
::{{Font color|green|text=What exactly is "the definition of biological sex here"? I do not see any sentence in this article that sounds like "Biological sex is..."}} |
|||
::Um did you pay attention to these sentences. Also I presented a source that kind of addresses that point. {{Font color|green|text=sogamy is very common in unicellular organisms while anisogamy is common in multicellular organisms.[10] An individual that produces exclusively large gametes is female, and one that produces exclusively small gametes is male.[38][4][39] An individual that produces both types of gametes is a hermaphrodite.[5] Some hermaphrodites, particularly hermaphroditic plants, are able to self-fertilize and produce offspring on their own, without a second organism.[40]}} |
|||
::Y’all are assuming I am saying we shouldn’t use these sources in general but what I’m really am saying is that belong in better places than here. |
|||
::I’m sorry if I am coming off as being repetitive. I’m just making sure people are reading what I’m saying.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 20:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::@[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]], you've quoted a source that says (correctly) that whether an organism is male or female depends on gamete size. What does your source say about the sex of a mammal that does not produce any gametes? Does it not exist? Is it neither male nor female nor hermaphroditic? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Or maybe we can have little sections for medical sources for this article.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 20:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Or we could add a section that gives definitions of sex from various fields in academia. |
|||
At this point I’m just throwing stuff out there to help please everyone.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 21:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:I think we probably want a section on [[sexing]]. "[[Sex-determination system|Sex determination]]" in this context usually means the biological process by which an individual organism develops a male or female body (or doesn't develop, in the case of various medical conditions). What's missing from the article is a section on "determining the sex", i.e., figuring out whether this specific organism already is male or female. Such a section could easily include examples from plants (e.g., people usually want to plant male [[Ginkgo biloba]] trees, because the seeds produced by the female trees stink, so you need to know how to tell which is which. @[[User:Plantsurfer|Plantsurfer]] might have a better suggestion), birds (can be difficult but is economically important to the chicken industry), and humans. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::''[[Cannabis]]'' is probably the best example of a plant where humans have an interest in determining sex. [[User:Plantdrew|Plantdrew]] ([[User talk:Plantdrew|talk]]) 01:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Maybe a section giving clarification on how to properly identify an organism’s sex could work. And maybe clarification why different fields clarify them that way could work.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 21:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:@[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]], what do you think would be a good section heading? Maybe ==Identifying an individual's sex==? ==Determining the sex==? ==Sex identification==? (That might be too easily confused with [[Gender identification]].) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::Well there is an article on [[sexing]]. Maybe a subjection on sexing is fine with a main article tag to sexing. |
|||
::Regarding medical sources we could create a subsection in sex differences section leading the the article on [[Sex differences in medicine]].[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 22:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::I've started the section, and put one simple sentence in it at [[Sex#Sexing]]. Would you like to have a go at expanding it? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
I believe I have some sources on sexing. So you don’t have too.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 01:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*WhatamIdoing, some of what you are talking about may belong more at [[sex assignment]] or elsewhere. Additionally, several of your sources are really not focused on sex or biology in and of itself. And this ''is'' a biology article (medicine is within biology broadly construed; however this article should not give undue weight to humans, which medicine is focused on). One of your sources is about intersex people, another about transgender people, and some of them were in psychology. <u>I see no good reason to use sources that are not general biology sources to define the topic when there are countless biology sources doing so.</u> There is a high risk of cherry picking there, and of getting unusual non-mainstream definitions that way. One of your sources, which is about performance enhancing drugs (!), even speaks of sex as a "spectrum", which is nonsense because sex is categorical, not continuous. That source confuses traits that vary with sex as sex itself. Such a source is [[WP:UNDUE]]. With hormones, for instance, a male animal with low testosterone is still male, not female. As for organisms that don't produce gametes, sex can still be determined by matching its phenotype or by genotype with the one that typically produces a certain gamete. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 05:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
**I think we have a ways to go before this article places undue weight on humans, assuming you mean ''undue'' in the policy sense. Given how much has been published about sex in humans, the article is looking a little light on the topic. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]]) 05:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::Maybe we could put some of these sources in articles like [[Sex differences in humans]].(seriously that article needs sources.) |
|||
:::Or [[Sex differences in human physiology]]. |
|||
:::Some sources are more ideal in other places.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 05:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::Each article should be comprehensive. It's likely that some of this information needs to be in multiple articles. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 08:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1702886473}} |
|||
{{Reflist-talk}}<!-- Template:Reflist-talk creates a section-level reference list box. Please add comments and references for this section's discussion above this template. When a new discussion begins, the new section will be added below this template. Add a new {{Reflist-talk}} at the end of that section if needed. --> |
|||
Should this article use a '''multifactoral''' definition of sex, such as: |
|||
{{u|WhatamIdoing}} I will just say this there are some views that are considered fringe and should be excluded from Wikipedia. |
|||
{{tq|'''Sex''' is a biological construct based on traits including external genitalia, secondary sex characteristics, gonads, chromosomes, and hormones.}} |
|||
Like the case with me removing the claim sex in humans was determined by five factors. Another reason I removed was because I couldn’t find any other sources that made any similar claim. I mean not even other sources in sociology claimed that. |
|||
or a '''reproductive''' definition of sex, such as: |
|||
Also I do believe some of the sources you presented may be confused on the matter. Like this source says. |
|||
{{tq|'''Sex''' is the trait that determines whether a sexually reproducing organism produces male or female gametes.}} |
|||
{{font color|green| Sex determination exists on a spectrum, with genitals, chromosomes, gonads, and hormones all playing a role.}} |
|||
Technically speaking genitals aren’t part of sex determination they are actually part of sexual differentiation.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 03:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
or '''both'''? [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 07:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC) ("Both" added by [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 21:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)) |
|||
:The term "sex determination" refers to two different things: |
|||
:* how the body develops, and |
|||
:* how someone figures out whether a body developed this way or that way. |
|||
:Which of these two different things is that source talking about? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
=== Survey === |
|||
::This kind of addresses the difference between sex determination and sexual differentiation. |
|||
* '''Multifactoral'''. See the Discussion section for more detail, but in brief, the recent sourcing for that definition is extremely strong, while we don't appear to have much sourcing at all for the older reproductive definition. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 07:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Both'''. It's clear from the discussion below that there are sources supporting each one. When reliable sources are not fully in consensus, we just present what they have to say, and note the differences. We do not ever choose a side. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 15:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
**(Having seen the discussion below, I am also fine with the disambiguation solution, and indeed that may be the best for it.) [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 19:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Reproductive''', because the "multifactorial" one is over at [[Sexual dimorphism]]. This is really the wrong question, and I think the problem is the [[WP:Article title]]. So, once again, from the top: |
|||
** The way that you figure out what the article about is...you figure out what the article is about. Naming it comes ''afterwards''. You can't figure out what the [[WP:COMMONNAME]] for _____ is unless and until you know what _____ is. The relationship between [[Wikipedia:Article titles and scopes]] puts the scope first. For example, the _____ of [[Queen Elizabeth II]] is "that nice old lady who was queen", not "anything and everything that gets called 'Queen Elizabeth II'. In this case, the _____ of this article is "the academic convention by which those seahorses which bear young internally are called males, even though it's weird to think of males being 'pregnant'". (And why are they called males? Because every good biologist knows that the definition of male is "whichever ones have the smaller and more mobile gametes" – full stop. There is no "unless they're pregnant" or "except when they're shorter" or "if their internal genitalia look like this" – there are ''no'' exceptions to this rule.) |
|||
** But with a few articles – I give [[Sex]] and [[Ketogenic diet]] as examples — we have a perfectly decent, well-understood _____, and some editor turns up and says "Oh, [[Title]] isn't about _____; [[Title]] is about <other thing>." That's what's happening here. As evidenced by the long conversations above, the OP's concern isn't whether there should be an article about dividing whole species into male and female; the OP's goal is to have the article ''at this particular title'' be about assigning individuals to the male half or the female half, with a particular emphasis on phenotypic variations in that process. |
|||
** I think that the only way to stop this kind of demand (to put it bluntly, that the article at the title [[Sex]] be arranged in ways that support personal beliefs that a large fraction of humans should consider themselves biologically intersex) is either to have the trans-related culture wars end in the real world, or to turn [[Sex]] into a disambiguation page. Only one of those is within our control. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::I'm not ''against'' turning [[Sex]] into a disambiguation page but the way this discussion has been going so far, that will just push the argument back one step. The reproductive definition should be on a page titled [[reproductive sex]], as it's only one of many such definitions, and the page for biological sex in general (because we still have to have one of those) should use the multifactoral definition below. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 21:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:::The definition of sex used by biologists for centuries could be considered biological sex, but if you want to complain about how your POV is the One True™ POV for [[Biological sex]], then that can redirect to the dab page, too. |
|||
*:::Your multifactorial definition could be at [[Phenotypic sex]], if you can articulate a clear distinction between that and [[Sexual dimorphism]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::::We don't go by the definition used "for centuries", we go with the most up-to-date definition in the sources. Otherwise we'd define heat as [[phlogiston]]. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 00:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Reproductive''' and '''Disambiguate'''. I'm not sure what title the topic of this article (the collective term for the two kinds of anisogamous sexually reproducing organisms) should have, but the title [[sex]] has many incoming links that intend [[sexual intercourse]] or [[human sexual activity]]. Outside of template (navbox) links, I'd estimate that most of the incoming links need disambiguation. Sources for a multifactoral definition are heavily anthropocentric. Sex is more complicated than XX/XY, but sources from biomedical/social (human/mammal) sources focus on stuff like [[SRY]] that upend XX/XY. Sources from biologists who aren't focused on mammals will focus on stuff like [[ZW sex-determination system]] that also upend XX/XY. [[User:Plantdrew|Plantdrew]] ([[User talk:Plantdrew|talk]]) 03:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:There might be a place for a multifactoral definition in a different article and the most appropriate disambiguatory term used for this article would be affected if there is an article on a multifactoral definition. [[User:Plantdrew|Plantdrew]] ([[User talk:Plantdrew|talk]]) 17:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment'''. I think you have to get past the politics of this. This is for one several topics in one so that would lean me to '''Dissambiguate'''. Having worked in this area, indirectly my Post Grad superviser researched Temperature Dependant Sex Determination etc, I am most familiar with this as a Biologist. First up this is not an encyclopedia of mammals so sticking to xx/xy is so outdated and nonencompassing of what is out there its bordering on a political argument more than a biological one. As some noted birds and reptiles use different systems. In reality intersex is a biological definition of indivisuals that have traits or abilities of both sexes, note some species can change sex under certain circumstances, eg Clown Fish. There are cases where under varying circumstances species can have the chromosomes of one sex but exhibit another, my old boss got a paper in Nature over that. He found completely reproductive females that had the chromosomes of a male, and vice versa. The whole issue of sex in anaimals is directly tied to gene mixing and survival, so yes there are safeguards in the system. Snails are hemophradytes totally functional, some species have parthenogenesis. Make an article about biological sex and another about sexuality in humans. Both are important and both should be done with respect. Cheers [[User:Faendalimas|<span style="color: #004730">Scott Thomson</span>]] (<small class="nickname">Faendalimas</small>) <sup>[[User talk:Faendalimas|<span style="color: maroon">talk</span>]]</sup> 10:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Reproductive''' The sources presented for multifactorial are not as authoritative or as strong as presented and contradictory (and highly critical) contemporary sources have been ignored. This is ill-conceived and fundamentally confuses anthropocentric heuristics for identifying sex in an individual, with sex. [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 19:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Both''' - It's clear from the sources below, particularly those identified by Loki, that the definition of sex is multifactorial, and that defining it based on the types of gametes an organism produces is one of those factors. That it is politically controversial to recognise sex as multifactorial in some parts of the world is not a reason for our content to not match with reliable sources. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 20:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:@[[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]], the seahorses that carry their young internally are male. The seahorses that don't are female. Please name all the "factors" that went into the decision to label these two groups "male and female" rather than "female and male". If it's truly multi-factorial, you should have no trouble at all coming up with ''at least'' two factors. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::{{re|WhatamIdoing}} I'm not a marine biologist (how often do you get to say that on enwiki?), and my knowledge of seahorses ends just slightly after the point at which the [[Science (journal)|Science journal]] defines them [https://www.science.org/content/article/genes-make-seahorses-so-weird as weird] and there's a lot about them we don't know. There's also two answers depending on whether you're asking this question from a historical or contemporary perspective. |
|||
*::For a contemporary perspective, in addition to the obvious factor of gametes, and the presence or absence of a brood pouch (both directly observable sex characteristics), at least one of the other factors seems to be [https://www.nature.com/articles/nature20595 genomic], if I'm understanding that paper correctly. The presence of one or more ''patristacin'' gene variants seems to be a necessary determinant, as it is expressed highly within the brood pouch. As for why male seahorses have a brood pouch, that is something I don't know, and I'm not sure is known. |
|||
*::If however you're asking me historically how seahorse sex was determined, it seems to have been through observation of the brood pouch. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 21:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:::How did marine biologists decide that the ones with a brood pouch (or other traits) should be called the male ones? Why didn't they decide that the ones with the brood pouch were female? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::::Ultimately, it doesn't matter to us how they decided that. It only matters what they've decided, and you can see below that especially recent sources are increasingly using a multifactoral definition of sex, even in non-human animals. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 00:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::Ultimately, how they decided that is ''the subject of this article'', no matter what this article is called. I think that matters very much for our current purposes. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 03:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::No, ''what'' they decided is the subject of the article. ''How'' and ''why'' they decided that is scientific research, and if we want to repeat that research on this talk page ourselves that's called [[WP:OR|original research]]. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 05:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::::I don't know, as I said I'm not a marine biologist. The real question is, how are they determined now? Definitions change over time, they can be replaced or added to. So how are scientists in the here and now determining the sex of seahorses? |
|||
*::::A paper published in [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2023.740084 Aquaculture in September 2023] mentions that the presence of a {{tq|brood pouch and gonadal morphology}} is one way to determine the sex phenotype of [[Hippocampus erectus]], while also stating that the presence or absence of ''[[Leucine-rich repeats and iq motif containing 1|LRRIQ1]]'' and ''[[Interleukin 34|IL34]]'' genes can be also be used for sexual determination. Likewise the paper in Nature that I linked in my previous reply also used a genomic basis for sex determination, albeit with a different gene. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 01:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::Sure, but that's to determine whether the sex phenotype of the individual you're looking at aligns more closely with the group conventionally called 'male' or with the group conventionally called 'female'. |
|||
*:::::The rule's the same for every single animal on Earth, so you don't actually need to be a marine biologist. Or, you know, read this article. The answer is in the very first sentence. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 03:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Reproductive''', there is already an entire separate entry covering [[gender]] and there are important distinctions we should not blur. [[Science Direct]] a respected digital publisher notes several of the differences between sex and gender clearly in articles like https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/gender-and-sex with many reasons for maintaining the biological (reproductive) definition of sex in medicine separately from gender. Watering it down to include / be based upon [[secondary sex characteristics]] & [[hormones]] which can be altered with drugs would effectively eliminate its usefulness. Protection of [[sex]] (reproductive) on the basis of best medical care & research should alone should be enough to conclude this debate. I additionally note the debate reaching [[seahorses]] on more than one occasion. This is surely a dead end and clearly not one where a new consensus will be won. Furthermore if new viewpoint is lost and [[sex]] was changed to multifactoral the page would be less clear to readers, and lead to further endless edit battles over the primacy of the different elements within the proposed list, rather than settling the issue. [[User:Alligator24|scolly69]] ([[User talk:Alligator24|talk]]) 23:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC) <small>— '''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:Alligator24|Alligator24]] ([[User talk:Alligator24|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alligator24|contribs]]) has been [[Wikipedia:Canvassing|canvassed]] to this discussion. </small> |
|||
*:I note that the very first source from your link is [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0074774222000666 this], which defines sex as {{tq2|“Sex” refers to biological differences between female, male and intersex subjects—human, animal or even at the cellular level. Sex is generally operationalized through what can be summarized as the 3 “Gs,” i.e., genes, gonads and genitalia (Blackless et al., 2000). Practically, this means that sex can be defined by three means...}} |
|||
*:This clearly looks like a multifactoral definition of sex to me. In fact, just skimming down the list, of the sources that define "sex" in their abstract there appear to be two sources that define sex multifactorally, one that defines it chromosomally, and zero that define it reproductively. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 00:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::"Operationalized through" means "identified in individuals via". It means "not the actual definition". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 03:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:::Did you miss the {{tq|this means that sex can be defined by three means}} at the end? [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 05:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::::Yes, and having read it in context, I realized that the authors were thinking of individual sex determination and not a dictionary definition. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Multifactoral''' It's pretty apparent just by reading the rest of this article that it's about more than just the reproductive aspects of sex, but also about the other factors in other sections, which then have main page links to all the various sub-pages. This article is the top level one giving the overview leading to all of that. We have the [[sexual reproduction]] page for a reason, not to mention [[reproduction]] and [[human reproduction]]. It seems bizarre to have this article try to be just a copy of information in that singular aspect. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color: dimgrey;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color: blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 23:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::Seriously why did it auto correct to this kind. What I met to say was this article addresses the difference between sexual differentiation and sex determination.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 04:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Reproductive'''. Sex would cease to have a useful meaning for the vast majority of sexual species if the so-called "multifactoral" definition of sex were to be adopted - which is exactly why this hasn't happened in academic science departments. What, exactly, would be the relevance of ''external genitalia'' to an asparagus? Or of ''gonads''? Or of ''hormones''? This whole discussion is frankly an exercise by anthropocentric ideologies from academic humanities to force scientific understandings to conform to contemporary trends, and it should be resisted. [[User:Fig wright|Fig]] ([[User talk:Fig wright|talk]]) 09:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::If you go to [[Sex determination (disambiguation)]], there are two main section headings. |
|||
* '''Reproductive''' - If the definition were changed, sex would no longer be differentiated from other terms, such as gender, that exist to cover the multifactoral concepts. —<B>[[User:Torchiest|Torchiest]]</B> <sup>[[User talk:Torchiest|talk]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Torchiest|edits]]</sub> 00:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::One is ==Development of an organism's sex==, and it includes: |
|||
* '''Reproductive''' Certainly there is a place for the multifactoral definition (perhaps in [[Human sexuality]]), but this article is definitely not the place. [[User:Kcmastrpc|Kcmastrpc]] ([[User talk:Kcmastrpc|talk]]) 00:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::* A [[sex-determination system]], a biological system that directs the development of sexual characteristics in an organism |
|||
* '''Reproductive.''' This is a general encyclopaedia article about ''biology'' that covers all sexually reproducing species. It is emphatically not an essay about [[gender]] (has its own page), [[human sexuality]] (has its own page) or any other human-related and in many cases behaviourally oriented topic such as practical treatment of patients based on their sex (or gender). It is always possibly to include short references and links to other articles where appropriate - this should be amply enough to address any issues behind the proposal. [[User:Stca74|Stca74]] ([[User talk:Stca74|talk]]) 07:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::* [[Sex determination and differentiation (human)]] |
|||
* '''Reproductive.''' This question seems to attempt to elevate a modern socio-political-cultural issue above a fundamental natural concept, implying the former is of much greater broad importance and more deserving of focus than the latter. I must emphasize emphatically that this is not true and is not the way a general encyclopedia for people across the world should handle such topics. [[User:Kajitani-Eizan|Kajitani-Eizan]] ([[User talk:Kajitani-Eizan|talk]]) 09:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC) <small>— '''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:Kajitani-Eizan|Kajitani-Eizan]] ([[User talk:Kajitani-Eizan|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kajitani-Eizan|contribs]]) has been [[Wikipedia:Canvassing|canvassed]] to this discussion. </small> |
|||
:::* [[Sexual differentiation]], the development of sexual characteristics in humans |
|||
*'''Reproductive'''. The section on humans can feature the other sort of definition. The only reason that lay sources on sex feature the ‘multifactoral’ definition is because laypeople are more liable to be interested in human sex. More scientific sources, about the vast breadth of the phenomenon, are clear that it’s about reproduction. [[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]] ([[User talk:Zanahary|talk]]) 14:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::The other is ==Discernment of an organism's sex==, and it includes: |
|||
* '''Disambiguate.''' There are different topics under or related to sex. They should go into different articles if they do not already. [[User:Senorangel|Senorangel]] ([[User talk:Senorangel|talk]]) 03:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::* [[Prenatal sex discernment]], prenatal testing for the discernment of the fetal sex in humans |
|||
* '''None of these.''' Recast as [[WP:Broad-concept article]] instead. Seems to me [[WP:BCA]] was invented for something like this. Literally will keep [[wikt:all y'all|all y'all]] happy. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 06:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::* [[Sex assignment]], the discernment of an infant's sex at birth |
|||
* '''Reproductive''', the clear and unambiguous definition of sex is the reason we can even talk about things such as [[Sexual dimorphism]], [[Sequential hermaphroditism]], or [[Simultaneous hermaphroditism]] [[User:High Tinker|High Tinker]] ([[User talk:High Tinker|talk]]) 17:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC) <small>— '''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:High Tinker|High Tinker]] ([[User talk:High Tinker|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/High Tinker|contribs]]) has been [[Wikipedia:Canvassing|canvassed]] to this discussion. </small> |
|||
:::* [[Sexing]], used by biologists and agricultural workers to discern the sex of livestock or other animals |
|||
* '''Reproductive''', as this is what the [[WP:WEIGHT]] of sources do that cover the tree of life broadly, as shown below in the Discussion section (and many more could be added). Almost all if not all of the sources alleged to support a "multifactorial" definition are anthropocentric; they are specifically about ''humans'' and about how to classify the sex of ''individual humans'', which [[intersex|in a small minority of cases]] is indeed ambiguous and involves a mix of traits from both sexes. In a medical context, that can be relevant. But this article is not about humans except to briefly contextualize them among their closer and further relatives on the tree of life; to give any significant weight to definitions built around them is backwards and a misapplication of the sources.{{pb}}There is no need to disambiguate this page; this is the [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]], and the hatnote and its link to [[Sex (disambiguation)]] serves that purpose perfectly well and with due weight. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 01:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::What I'm telling you is that there's plenty of information about the first section and not nearly enough information about the second section. |
|||
::P.S.: Regarding the example sentences used in the OP, there are far more sources that refer to sex as a "trait" rather than as a "construct". Sex is a [[phenotypic trait]], not a mere "construct" (whatever that is supposed to mean). <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 20:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::Do you understand what content I think is missing? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 14:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::Presumably a [[Social construct]] is intended, since the meaning of all words is a social construct. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::I suspected as much, but of course this would then apply to literally every topic in Wikipedia and to every scientific term. Yet, one never sees a push to label things like anthropogenic climate change, evolution, Covid-19, or the shape of the Earth as social constructs. Most if not all arguments used to claim sex is a social construct apply to many other things as well, yet it is easy to see how in such cases it obscures more than it clarifies or even implies that there is no objective basis to believe the phenomenon exists. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 18:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Climate change could be described as a phenomenon; perhaps that word would work here, too. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Reproductive'''. Was leaning both, but it's clear the article is about biology and the sex of organisms. The article is not limited to humans. [[User:Zenomonoz|Zenomonoz]] ([[User talk:Zenomonoz|talk]]) 23:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Reproductive''' - As stated at the top of the article, "This article is about the distinguishing trait in sexually reproducing organisms." [[User:PhenomenonDawn|PhenomenonDawn]] ([[User talk:PhenomenonDawn|talk]]) 23:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC) <small>— '''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:PhenomenonDawn|PhenomenonDawn]] ([[User talk:PhenomenonDawn|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/PhenomenonDawn|contribs]]) has been [[Wikipedia:Canvassing|canvassed]] to this discussion. </small> |
|||
*'''Reproductive'''. This is the first I've come across the "multifactorial" definition. I suppose one can fall back on the other factors to identify an individual's sex in totally sterile animals if gametes aren't available...although I'd say the equipment existing to produce certain gametes still falls under the "reproductive" definition even if the cells aren't ever produced. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 02:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Both''' and recast article as [[WP:Broad-concept article]], cf. discussion of [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]]. I would be open to some form of disambiguation. — [[User:Chalst|''Charles Stewart'']] <small>[[User_talk:Chalst|(talk)]]</small> 11:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Reproductive''' - per [[WP:LEAD]] as it is a summary of the article content and the wording used. The content here is not talking about biological "construct", maybe that is for a different article in the theme? Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 14:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Both''' and '''Disambiguate'''. I am voting for this variant because clearly sex is not just about producing of gametes (reproductive cells). From my perspective as a person with education in biology (molecular genetics) it is much more complex. Sex is basically reproductive strategy of an organism. However this strategy is fulfilled not just by gametes but also by secondary sex characteristics of phenotype which serve as a major aspect of gamete production and distribution (gonads, ductal system and genitalia-in mammals) and secondary sex characteristics (visible aspects of phenotype besides primary sex characteristics, mostly formed during maturation of an organism) which support mating strategy of an organism. Without secondary sex characteristics sexually reproducing organism couldn't achieve successful mating and wouldn't in fact reproduce. Secondary sex characteristics are induced by interplay of genotype and sex hormones in mammals (regulation of gene transcription). All these aspects are inseparable parts of a concept which we can describe as "sex". Thus I strongly recommend complex description, gamete production is reductive and doesn't fully describe sex as a reproductive strategy. Multifactoral definition with addition of gonads and produced type of gamete provides complete description. Which means sex is both "Multifactoral" and "Reproductive". There is another problem with "Reproductive" gamete definition. When we want to create classification system which would be able to classify sex of an organism you cannot use solely gamete based definition because it would fail to classify organism which doesn't produce any gametes for whatever reason, be it induced condition or congenital condition. In such cases we need to fallback to definition based on phenotype of an organism and that is described by "Multifactoral" definition rather than just "Reproductive" gamete based.[[User:Beczky|Beczky]] 23:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC) <small>— '''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:Beczky|Beczky]] ([[User talk:Beczky|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Beczky|contribs]]) has been [[Wikipedia:Canvassing|canvassed]] to this discussion. </small> |
|||
*:The multi-factorial approach fails for example here with these [[Common_side-blotched_lizard#Rock–paper–scissors_mechanism|lizards]]. There are three widely divergent types of males, each with very different behaviours and morphologies, the consistent way that we can tell they are all males is because of the gamete they produce. [[User:High Tinker|High Tinker]] ([[User talk:High Tinker|talk]]) 11:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:All of the aspects you mention are still solidly in the "reproductive" definition, not "multifactorial", as they are all ultimately predicated on the gametes a type of organism produces. From the perspective of biology it doesn't matter if one species has secondary sex characteristics resembling those of males in other species; if it produces ova it is still female (or hermaphroditic if it also produces sperm). It's the gamete production that is necessary and sufficient to identify sex in a species; secondary sex characteristics may generally be necessary, but they are not sufficient.{{pb}}An organism that doesn't produce any gametes does not sexually reproduce, so there is no conflict with the "reproductive" gamete definition. What you seem to be talking about, though, is how to classify sex in an individual organism rather than in a whole species or clade--but that is not what this page is about. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 00:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::This is a general definition of sex. Problem I see is determination of sex of an individual organism. I see a conflict here. If we accept only gamete based definition then it means some organisms would be classified as sexless. Is it acceptable or not? [[User:Beczky|Beczky]] ([[User talk:Beczky|talk]]) 12:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:::Why would an article on sex be of any concern to organisms which are sexless? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but where is the conflict or problem in that instance? [[User:Kcmastrpc|Kcmastrpc]] ([[User talk:Kcmastrpc|talk]]) 12:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:::Of course it's acceptable; all prokaryotes are sexless. |
|||
*:::Wikipedia needs two articles: |
|||
*:::* An article about sex determination for an individual organism ("Given that males generally have these characteristics, and females generally have those characteristics, which is this particular individual?") |
|||
*:::* A separate article about which group gets labeled male or female ("We have two groups; which group gets labeled as male and which group gets labeled as female? We can't figure out which characteristics males and females 'generally have', if we can't figure out which group gets which label.") |
|||
*:::The subject of this particular article is the second one. The articles about the first probably need work. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::::Why does Wikipedia need those two articles? Do the sources make this distinction? Because it looks to me like they don't. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 04:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::Medical sources certainly do. For that tiny minority of ambiguous intersex babies, there's nothing whatsoever in a medical textbook about the convention that sperm producers are called male. It's all about assigning an individual to a pre-divided group. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::Why do you think that? Because all I see is "sex is...". I think that you're assigning this intent to the sources after the fact. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 22:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::Do you see any medical textbooks explaining why males are called males and not called females? I haven't (and after 16+ years with WikiProject Medicine, I have seen a ''lot'' of medical textbooks). Therefore, medical textbooks do not explain the convention that sperm producers are called male. Please feel free to provide a counterexample, though. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::Have you seen any medical textbooks explaining why dogs are called dogs and not oompa-loompas? |
|||
*::::::::Does the lack of such an explanation mean that when a textbook tells you what a dog is, you say "but since it's not explaining why this species is called dogs instead of something else, it's not a definition of 'dog'"? [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 03:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::: [http://www.carolinecoile.com/blog/oompa-loompas-and-toto-too-or-my-kansas-vacation-part-1 Here's] one. How many do you need? [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 03:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::::<small> For a moment there I was very confused. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 04:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)</small> |
|||
*:::::::::There are sources explaining why certain canids are called dogs and not called gray wolves, or, more generally, why other closely related species are conventionally given different names. Because of the [[Species complex]] problem, sources like this are fairly common. Every animal with a [[Valid name (zoology)]] has a definition that tells you how to differentiate this particular species from some other, similar species. There are variations in individuals that might make them difficult to classify at a glance (e.g., an albino ball python won't have the characteristic coloring of its species, but it's still part of its species), but there's still a general definition. |
|||
*:::::::::It's the same thing with males and females: we have a human-imposed conventional nomenclature that says sperm=male and egg=female. There are variations in individuals that might make them difficult to classify at a glance (e.g., intersex animals), but there's still a general definition. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::::The definition on [[dog]] is {{tq|The dog (Canis familiaris or Canis lupus familiaris) is a domesticated descendant of the wolf.}} This isn't even sufficient to distinguish one individual organism from another, let alone explain why this particular species is called "dog". |
|||
*::::::::::And this pattern is true for ''most'' Wikipedia articles. So for instance, the definition of a [[chair]] is {{tq|A chair is a type of seat, typically designed for one person and consisting of one or more legs, a flat or slightly angled seat and a back-rest.}} which ''is'' (mostly) sufficient for distinguishing between individual objects, but cannot explain why the class of objects called "chairs" are called that. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 05:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::::::WhatamIdoing is talking about {{tq|Linnaeus considered the dog to be a separate species from the wolf because of its upturning tail (''cauda recurvata''), which is not found in any other canid}}. Most Wikipedia articles on species don't include information differentiating the species from it's close relatives (because most articles on species are 1-2 sentence stubs), and I think it's safe to say that none of the Wikipedia articles that do include the differences from close relatives have that information in the first sentence. But every species has a publication somewhere out there that does give the differences from close relatives. I'm not sure how dogs are particularly relevant though. |
|||
*:::::::::::Chair seems more relevant. Chairs (presumably) have been independently invented multiple times. [[Anisogamy]] (production of sperm/eggs) has evolved independently multiple times. [[Gonochory]] (separate individuals producing sperm/eggs) has evolved independently multiple times. Convergent evolution has produced different things that humans use the same label for in spite of their independent evolution. We use the word [[wing]] to refer to independently evolved appendages in birds, bats, insects and pterosaurs (the wing article is awfully anthropcentric, focusing mainly on wings constructed by humans). [[User:Plantdrew|Plantdrew]] ([[User talk:Plantdrew|talk]]) 18:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::::{{u|WhatamIdoing}} wrote - ''Every animal with a Valid name (zoology) has a definition that tells you how to differentiate this particular species from some other, similar species''. This is not entirely the right way to look at this. Your mixing taxonomy and nomenclature. A name has a diagnosis which ''purports'' to differentiate the taxon. It does not have to actually work. A species in a taxonomic assessment will have a set of characters that diagnose the species from other related forms, no matter what name is applied to it, if any. [[User:Faendalimas|<span style="color: #004730">Scott Thomson</span>]] (<small class="nickname">Faendalimas</small>) <sup>[[User talk:Faendalimas|<span style="color: maroon">talk</span>]]</sup> 02:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::::::Having a valid name is how you know that it's been accepted as a separate species in the taxonomy. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::::::remember though that the difference between availability and validity (zoology) is a taxonomic assessment. So that is true but there are plenty of taxa recognised without a valid name, plenty with a valid name that cannot be distinguished, and also plenty where there are options depending on where you look. Birdlife Int Checklist has 20% more species in it than IOC, which is correct? [[User:Faendalimas|<span style="color: #004730">Scott Thomson</span>]] (<small class="nickname">Faendalimas</small>) <sup>[[User talk:Faendalimas|<span style="color: maroon">talk</span>]]</sup> 02:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::::::::I feel completely confident in saying that neither is entirely correct. Both contain errors and out of date entries. If you meant "Whose inclusion guidelines do you feel are more compelling?", I'd say that [[Wikipedia:I am not a reliable source]], so Wikipedia doesn't really care which one I prefer. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Reproductive'''. As many editors have already pointed out, this article is about the biological notion of sex, "the distinguishing trait in sexually reproducing organisms", not about human sexuality and gender, which already have their own self-standing articles. It's perfectly clear, the hatnote template:About does its job here, and I don't see the need to disambiguate further. [[User:Gitz6666|Gitz]] ([[User talk:Gitz6666|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Gitz6666|contribs]]) 15:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Reproductive''' Agree that this article is clearly about the biological aspects and we have other articles that cover other aspects. I don't see the need for the change here. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 02:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Multifactoral/both'''; this is self-evident and not up for debate, given how this topic is covered in reliable sources and even in the article. Per Silverseren ({{tq|"It's pretty apparent just by reading the rest of this article that it's about more than just the reproductive aspects of sex, but also about the other factors in other sections, which then have main page links to all the various sub-pages."}}) I also note that there have been organized attempts at [[WP:CANVASSING]] by anti-trans activists on social media, including a Tweet that has been retweeted over 700 times by anti-trans Twitter accounts specifically linking to this talk page. --[[User:Amanda A. Brant|Amanda A. Brant]] ([[User talk:Amanda A. Brant|talk]]) 20:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:We're aware of the canvassing, that's why there's that big notice at the top. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 03:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Reproductive''' - {{TQ|Almost all if not all of the sources alleged to support a "multifactorial" definition are anthropocentric; they are specifically about humans and about how to classify the sex of individual humans}} this article is clearly much wider than that and about a basic biological distinction across most of the animal and plant world. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 15:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Reproductive''': From my reading of the multifactoral sources below, they seem to exclusively talk about humans and sometimes animals. As this page also includes plants, it should include a generalized definition, which reproductive works as. The multifactoral aspect can be added to human-specific articles. [[User:ARandomName123|ARandomName123]] ([[User talk:ARandomName123|talk]])<sup><span style="color:Green"><small>Ping me!</small></span></sup> 23:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Reproductive''' and Disamb to [[Gender]] for the multifactoral which is only completely valid for organisms that ''have'' external genitals and sexual dimorphism. Why complicate this and confuse the reader? How does that improve the encyclopaedia? Cheers, [[User:Last1in|Last1in]] ([[User talk:Last1in|talk]]) 18:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
=== Discussion === |
|||
::::By the way the article already links to sex assignment in the see also section, not sure having a section of sex assignment is appropriate for an article like this. We already made a section on sexing. Also with regards to Prenatal sex discernment maybe we could place that in see also section. |
|||
* The following 14 sources, including several [[WP:MEDORG]] sources support the multifactoral definition: |
|||
::::Back to the sex determination and sexual differentiation thing. The two are connected but are different. |
|||
::::[[https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/sex-determination This source]] and [[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3636272/ this one]] might give an explanation on the difference.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 15:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::We just started a section on the discernment of an organism's sex, and it currently contains two (2) sentences. That is not enough. There should be multiple paragraphs, and maybe even separate ===subsections=== for major categories (e.g., one for sexing plants, one for birds and other non-human animals, and a third for humans). [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse top|1=Multifactoral sources}} |
|||
:::::Keep in mind sexing is it’s own article. Unfortunately the article on sexing is ridiculously short and probably needs expansion.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 17:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* [https://americananthro.org/news/no-place-for-transphobia-in-anthropology-session-pulled-from-annual-meeting-program/ The American Anthropological Association] says as of just a few days ago that {{tq2|There is no single biological standard by which all humans can be reliably sorted into a binary male/female sex classification.}} |
|||
::::::That article probably does need expansion. |
|||
* [https://orwh.od.nih.gov/sex-gender The NIH (Office of Research on Women's Health)] defines sex as {{tq2|a multidimensional biological construct based on anatomy, physiology, genetics, and hormones.}} |
|||
::::::All of these things have their own articles. ''This'' article needs a proper [[WP:SUMMARY]] of all these related topics. Not two sentences, not a link in the ==See also== section – a complete and proper summary, so that anyone who shows up at this page learns the basics (e.g., "it's not just a matter of looking at external genitals") and knows which articles to go to find more information (e.g., this article if you want to know more about how farmers discern the sex of chicks but that article if you want more about how doctors discern the sex of humans). [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* [https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48642.html The Canadian Institutes of Health Research] defines sex as {{tq2|a set of biological attributes in humans and animals. It is primarily associated with physical and physiological features including chromosomes, gene expression, hormone levels and function, and reproductive/sexual anatomy.}} |
|||
:::::::Multiple subsections is too much. How to determine an organism's sex is a small part of this topic, especially regarding humans. There also should not be undue weight on the activist-favored but confusing phrase "sex assigned at birth", as it is not arbitrarily "assigned", and it is nowadays typically detected before birth. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 23:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* [https://www.who.int/teams/sexual-and-reproductive-health-and-research/key-areas-of-work/sexual-health/defining-sexual-health The WHO] defines sex, somewhat tautologically, as {{tq2|the biological characteristics that define humans as female or male}} |
|||
::::::::We haven't yet managed to get past a single paragraph, so I don't think we need to worry about it being too much yet. ;-) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 01:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* [https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/terminology/sexual-and-gender-identity-terms.htm The CDC] defines sex as {{tq2|An individual’s biological status as male, female, or something else. Sex is assigned at birth and associated with physical attributes, such as anatomy and chromosomes.}} |
|||
::::::::[[User:Crossroads|Crossroads]], what data are you relying on when you say sex "is nowadays typically detected before birth"? Wikipedia is a [[WP:GLOBAL]] website, an American or European perspective is not appropriate, and your claim seems unlikely. [[UNICEF]] produce statistics on access to antenatal care, which is described as a recommended 4 visits for "blood pressure measurement", "urine testing for bacteriuria and proteinuria", "blood testing to detect syphilis and severe anaemia" and "weight/height measurement (optional)", where "Most pregnant women access skilled antenatal care at least once, but globally, only 60 per cent receive four antenatal care visits". {{Cite web| last = UNICEF| title = Antenatal care| work = UNICEF DATA| accessdate = 2021-07-24| date = 2021| url = https://data.unicef.org/topic/maternal-health/antenatal-care/}} [[User:Trankuility|Trankuility]] ([[User talk:Trankuility|talk]]) 09:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* [https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/diversity/education/transgender-and-gender-nonconforming-patients/definitions-and-pronoun-usage The American Psychiatric Association] defines sex as {{tq2|a biological construct defined on an anatomical, hormonal, or genetic basis}} |
|||
:::::::::Even when sex is assigned before birth, it may have been done using an ultrasound and visual identification of the genitals. I do see frequent use of "assigned sex" without the "at birth". I'm willing to bet five hours of fixing links to disambiguation pages at [[WP:DPL]] that most people currently on Earth have been assigned their sex based on anatomy and not gametes. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]]) 14:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* [https://www.wpath.org/media/cms/Documents/SOC%20v7/SOC%20V7_English.pdf WPATH] defines sex (on p96) as {{tq2|Sex is assigned at birth as male or female, usually based on the appearance of the external genitalia. When the external genitalia are ambiguous, other components of sex (internal genitalia, chromosomal and hormonal sex) are considered in order to assign sex (Grumbach, Hughes, & Conte,2003; MacLaughlin & Donahoe, 2004; Money & Ehrhardt, 1972; Vilain, 2000).}} |
|||
::::::::::{{u|Firefangledfeathers}} That comment isn’t really helpful for the article. Also look at source number 3 and read the quote. If it is accepted by convenient then arguing against that is going against [[WP:RS/AC academic consensus.]][[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 15:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* [https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/26424/chapter/3#19 The National Academies of Medicine] themselves in a recent publication define sex as {{tq2|a multidimensional construct based on a cluster of anatomical and physiological traits that include external genitalia, secondary sex characteristics, gonads, chromosomes, and hormones}} |
|||
:::::::::::This is one of those situations where I am not saying anything even close to what you think I'm saying. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]]) 15:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* The 11th edition of the college textbook Campbell Biology by Urry, Cain, Wasserman, Minorsky, and Orr (ISBN 978-0134093413) defines sex on p298 as {{tq2|Although sex has traditionally been described as binary—male or female—we are coming to understand that this classification may be too simplistic. Here, we use the term sex to refer to classification into a group with a shared set of anatomical and physiological traits. In this sense, sex in many species is determined largely by inheritance of sex chromosomes. (The term gender, previously used as a synonym of sex, is now more often used to refer to an individual’s own experience of identifying as male, female, or otherwise.)}} |
|||
:::::::: "Sex assigned at birth" is not an {{tq|activist-favored but confusing phrase}} - it is ''the'' phrase favored by recent, reliable sources for the activity it describes (involving humans); it is the standard term in medical, sociological and social work, demographic, and legal sources as well as those specializing in sex and gender, [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 12:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* The [https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/editorial-policies/ethics-and-biosecurity#sex-gender-sexual-orientation website of the journal ''Nature''] defines sex as {{tq2|Sex – refers to currently understood biological differences between females and males, including chromosomes, sex organs, and endogenous hormonal profiles. Sex is usually categorized as female or male, although there is variation in the biological attributes that constitute sex.}} |
|||
Honestly I don’t assigned sex fits an article like this in general.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 00:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* The [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10943/ college textbook Neuroscience, 2nd edition], published in 2001, defines sex as {{tq2|Roughly speaking, sex can be considered in terms of three categories: genotypic sex, phenotypic sex, and gender. Genotypic sex refers specifically to an individual's two sex chromosomes. Most people have either two X chromosomes (genotypic female) or an X and a Y chromosome (genotypic male). Phenotypic sex refers to an individual's sex as determined by their internal and external genitalia, expression of secondary sex characteristics, and behavior. If everything proceeds according to plan during development (Box A), the XX genotype leads to a person with ovaries, oviducts, uterus, cervix, clitoris, labia, and vagina—i.e., a phenotypic female. By the same token, the XY genotype leads to a person with testicles, epididymis, vas deferens, seminal vesicles, penis, and scrotum—a phenotypic male. Gender refers more broadly to an individual's subjective perception of their sex and their sexual orientation, and is therefore harder to define than genotypic or phenotypic sex. Generally speaking, gender identity entails self-appraisal according to the traits most often associated with one sex or the other (called gender traits), and these can be influenced to some degree by cultural norms. Sexual orientation also entails self-appraisal in the context of culture.}} |
|||
* The [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12758223/ paper Human sex differentiation and its abnormalities] starts by defining sex as {{tq2|Sex is multidimensional. By this, we mean that no single gene, hormone, anatomical feature or behaviour indisputably determines the sex of an individual}} |
|||
* The [http://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/terms/sex.html Gendered Innovations Project at Stanford] defines sex several times, but summarizes these definitions as {{tq2|Sex refers to biology. In humans, sex refers to the biological attributes that distinguish male, female, and/or intersex. In non-human animals, sex refers to biological attributes that distinguish male, female, and/or hermaphrodite. In engineering & product design research, sex includes anatomical and physiological characteristics that may impact the design of products, systems, and processes.}} |
|||
* The [https://www.cell.com/neuron/authors neuroscience journal Neuron] defines sex as {{tq2|In human research, the term "sex" carries multiple definitions. It often refers to an umbrella term for a set of biological attributes associated with physical and physiological features (e.g., chromosomal genotype, hormonal levels, or internal and external anatomy). It can also signify a sex categorization, most often designated at birth ("sex assigned at birth") based on a newborn's visible external anatomy.}} |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
: Furthermore, [https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/what-do-we-mean-by-sex-and-gender/ this piece by the Yale School of Medicine] refers to a 2001 definition by the [[Institute of Medicine]] (now the National Academies of Medicine) as {{tq2|a classification, generally as male or female, according to the reproductive organs and functions that derive from the chromosomal complement [generally XX for female and XY for male].}} but also explicitly argues that this definition is outdated and should be updated. |
|||
{{u|Newimpartial}} assigned sex in itself is subjective. Not to mention sex assignment is in the see also what else do you want?[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 14:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
: I was not asking for the use of the term to be expanded; I was simply responding to Crossroads. And yes, sex assignment is subjective to some extent - that is precisely the reality the term was created to recognize. Sex is assigned to humans subjectively. Which answers your musing, {{tq|I don't see how assigned sex fits in an article like this in general}} - most of the readers of this article will be humans, and how sex works in humans (including how it is assigned to individuals) is likely to be important to the article's readers. If most of the readers were, say, lice or lizards, we might need to adjust the focus accordingly to emphasize different cases. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 14:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::I don’t understand how you think bringing up the readers being humans is gonna help anything. Look down below this article is classified as an article with objective content. |
|||
::Plus the main focus of this article has always been about sex from various species. Look at older versions of this article.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 14:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::: If you don't think human readers often come to this article to read about sex in humans, or if you believe that activities (assignment) that objectively occur but are based on subjective assessments are somehow not of interest to those readers, I don't know what to tell you. Evaluating reliable, "objective" sources about subjective actions is one of the main things editors are called on to do on WP, and the idea that we can remove such content from articles (because IDONTLIKEIT?) is pretty clearly contrary to policy. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 15:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::Are you aware that there is a difference between reliable and objective. I mean belief. In god is subjective but there are tons of reliable sources that mention where the belief in god originated from and other it affects cultures. |
|||
::::It’s just undue weight to go into full detail about sex in humans. From an evolutionary and biological perspective humans are merely just mammals or more specifically we are just primates. And that is an objective fact.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 15:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Certain aspects of this article's topic, such as sex assignment, are unique to humans.The sources on these aspects of the topic are no less objective (no more based on particular POV) than sources on other aspects. And some of our readers, as humans, are naturally interested in aspects specific to humans. It would not be DUE to exclude then, and you have provided no reason to do so except your own POV. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 15:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Here’s the thing about that things like sex determination is basically the same in all mammals. It’s unusual to argue that sex in humans is determined by five factors and say that it isn’t in other mammal species. (Although in fruit flys XY sex determination is different than mammals.) Also it would contradictory to mention that “sex in humans is assigned” and mention that humans have XY sex determination. |
|||
::::::Also what’s up with this whole “my POV” nonsense. When I told you assigned sex is subjective, you straight admitted it was subjective as well. Humans being considered mammals is objective, that’s common sense at this point I mean seriously they teach that kind of stuff in elementary school.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 15:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: CycoMa, Wikipedia is full of topics (including most historical and social topics) that include objective phenomena - sex assignment happens to babies, an atomic weapon was dropped on Hiroshima - but where the activity described is ineluctably subjective. It is the responsibility of WP editors to write about them objectively (that is, with NPOV) based On the reliable sources. The idea that Wikipedia should include purportedly non-subjective statements like "humans are considered mammals" while excluding objective statements about subjective processes, like "infants are assigned male or female in infancy", is what I am referring to as {{tq|your own POV}}. There is simply no basis for this in WP policy; it is just what you [[WP:ILIKEIT|would personally prefer]]. And if you can't tell the difference between the biological process of sex determination and the societal activity of sex assignment for humans, then perhaps you should be more careful to edit within your area of [[WP:CIR|competence]]. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 16:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
: The following 4 sources that have been offered by opponents in previous discussions support the reproductive definition: |
|||
::::::::You said there is a difference between biological and societal. This article is not about the sociological or the societal interpretation of the matter, it never once was. Neutral point of view does not mean we should treat fringe views like they are legit arguments, NPOV does it mean “we should use sources that don’t have any knowledge on a certain topic.” Like if I was editing an article on history I would use sources by historians or archeologists, I wouldn’t cite a technician as a source. |
|||
::::::::Many editors on this article have said stated this article is about sex across various species. There is nothing unique or special about about humans, claiming otherwise is merely a religious view.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 16:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{Od}}I am aware that you and other [[WP:OWN]]ers of this article insist on limiting its scope to biology, but that has not consistently been true of the article over time, and isn't policy-compliant. And I am not claiming anything {{tq|unique or special about humans}} except that they are capable of certain cognitive operations, such as reading and interpreting our articles. One corollary of that is that human readers are often interested in aspects of topics that are specific to humans, such as sex assignment. Your attempt to contort the topic of this article so that it only includes what humans have in common with other mammals embodies an almost Stalinist anti-humanism, at least as I see it. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 16:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:I told you earlier sex assignment is linked in the also see section. If readers want to know about sex assignment then they can click on that link and go there. |
|||
:Also I’m not being a Stalinist or anti-humanist I’m merely being a realist.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 16:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:: Insisting, as you have, that {{tq|humans are ... just primates. And that is an objective fact}}, without acknowledging that humans are also ''the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia's readers'' is not {{tq|being a realist}}. It is being a pedant, unwilling to recognize the relevance of context. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 16:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse top|1=Reproductive sources}} |
|||
== Biological Sex: Binary or Spectrum == |
|||
* [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Biology_of_Sex/bLhcDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA43 Biology of Sex, a 2018 textbook], defines sex as {{tq2|based on gonads and on the type of gametes produced in those gonads, either eggs or sperm.}} |
|||
{{cot|bg=cornsilk|A really interesting discussion among several knowledgeable users, but not about specifically [[WP:TALK|improving this article]].{{br}}Please take this up at [[WP:WikiProject Sex]], [[WP:Reference desk]], or some other venue.}} |
|||
* The Biology of Reproduction by Fusco and Minelli, ISBN 9781108499859, published 2019, defines sex as {{tq2|Acquiring the phenotypic characters specific to a given sex, during development or at some other point during the life cycle of an organism, is usually a complex process. Although the sex of an individual is conventionally defined on the basis of the type of gametes, either eggs or sperm, that it is able to produce (see Section 3.2.1), the phenotype of each sex is generally composed of a multitude of characters. Each of these characters can present a certain degree of independence from other sexual traits in the same organism, be subject to different developmental controls, and show different degrees of sensitivity to the environment. Sexual differentiation is therefore not limited to the development of characteristic reproductive organs and the production of a given kind of gametes, but also extends to the development of the so-called secondary sexual characters, morphological, physiological and behavioural, or combinations of these.}} |
|||
Reading through this article, it really feels as though there is some kind of intense political war between two camps of activists: those who believe biological sex is strictly binary (male or female) and those who believe biological sex is a spectrum. This is quite evident in the talk page discussion above as well. Wikipedia is absolutely NOT the place to wage war over subjective viewpoints. It undermines our credibility and is more fitting for Twitter or Joe Rogan's podcast. This article should really outline how biological sex is determined in different species in an objective manner using reliable sources from a wide breadth of material. In fact, sex is binary for some species, a spectrum for others, and everything in between. Some species, like algae and cyanobacteria, reproduce asexually by cloning and there is no biological sex. Some species of fish start off as female in a harem led by a dominant male, but when that dominant male dies then a female takes his place and transforms into a biological male that produces male gametes. What is that? Is that a strict binary? I don't think so seems like something in between to me if they can literally switch between female and male biological sex. Some species have both male and female sexes simultaneously. I don't understand why this is so political. It is unbecoming of us as editors on Wikipedia and needs to stop. [[User:TrueQuantum|TrueQuantum]] ([[User talk:TrueQuantum|talk]]) 18:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* The [https://books.google.com/books?id=4XycAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA1320 Oxford English Dictionary] as of 2011 defined sex as {{tq2|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.}} but I note that this is not a [[WP:MEDRS]] source and is also possibly not up to date. I'd welcome someone accessing a newer version of the OED and seeing what they say now. |
|||
* The [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Life/kS-h84pMJw4C?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA736&printsec=frontcover textbook Life: The Science of Biology], published 2000, says that {{tq2|Sexual reproduction requires both male and female haploid gametes. In most species, these gametes are produced by individuals that are either male or female. Species that have male and female members are called dioecious (from the Greek for 'two houses'). In some species, a single individual may possess both female and male reproductive systems. Such species are called monoecious ("one house") or hermaphroditic.}} though I note that while it implies sex is based on gametes it does not actually define it. |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
:I totally understand that mindset, most of the discussions on this article have been over that. At this point it is kind of repetitive, and to be fair I’m a little guilty for that. |
|||
: Although [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Vegetal_Sex/rFeHEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22sex+is%22+%22gametes%22&pg=PA39&printsec=frontcover Vegetal Sex by Stella Sandford] has been offered by opponents as a book that defines sex as based on gametes, it in fact puts up such a definition to be refuted and goes on to spend the rest of the chapter rejecting the idea that sex is a meaningful concept in plants at all. |
|||
:Also regarding the algae example you bring up. There are species where females can self reproduce. |
|||
: Overall I find the sourcing here pretty overwhelming that sex is defined in a multifactoral way, and think it's impossible to say with these sources that we should continue to define sex in a purely reproductive way: either it should be defined only multifactorally or both definitions should be represented. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 07:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*Why not mention both? It really depends in what context and what field. Biologists tend to look to define sex by the gametes that reproductive organs produce. I have no issue with the multifactorial definition being presented either. [[User:Zenomonoz|Zenomonoz]] ([[User talk:Zenomonoz|talk]]) 08:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Also regarding that fish example you brought up. One could argue that in that’s species it is indeed binary, I can’t speak for everyone but when people say it’s binary I don’t think they are saying a species can’t change its sex. |
|||
*:@[[User:Zenomonoz|Zenomonoz]], "mentioning" both might be appropriate, but the request here is really to change the main subject of this article (from "how to divide a whole species into male and female" to "there's ''so'' much variation in human phenotypes"). |
|||
*:"Mentioning" the latter, in the form of a "not to be confused with" statement, would be perfectly appropriate. Our goal, after all, is to get readers to the subject they care about. Some will want to read about why those wacky biologists decided that the seahorses that get pregnant should be called male, when every Kindergartner knows that it's the mommies who get pregnant; others will want to read about – and should be sent promptly off to the existing article about – the vast and vibrant variability in individual phenotypes. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:I'm not totally against mentioning both, but my reason for preferring multifactoral only is that first of all I think the weight of the sources are strongly on the side of the multifactoral definition to the point where we don't need to give significant weight to other definitions, and second of all I think trying to phrase that properly would be awkward. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 21:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*It clearly depends on the field. In biology, it's clearly possible and normal to define sex – in that context – based on gametes. See for example the multitude of terms used in botany at [[Plant reproductive morphology#Terminology]]. In the context of human society, other definitions may be used. Our task is to follow reliable sources. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 09:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
* In short, it is proposed to define sex as sex phenotype, but they are not the same. I've already specified one reliable source that explains the difference, here's another one for the definition: {{tqb|'''Standard definitions''' of sexes in '''biology''' are based on the '''difference between sex cells''' (gametes, i.e., the egg and the sperm) and proceed as follows:<br/>Male 1. Denoting the gamete (sex cell) that, during sexual reproduction, fuses with a female gamete in the process of fertilization. Male gametes are generally smaller than the female gametes and are usually motile 2. (Denoting) an individual whose reproductive organs produce only male gametes. (Hine Reference Hine 2019)<br/>Female 1. Denoting the gamete (sex cell) that, during sexual reproduction, fuses with a male gamete in the process of fertilization. Female gametes are generally larger than the male gametes and are usually immotile 2. (Denoting) an individual organism whose reproductive organs produce only female gametes. (Hine Reference Hine 2019)|source={{Cite journal |last=Evron |first=Aya |date=2023-06-13 |title=What Do Sexes Have to Do with (Models of) Sexual Selection? |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy-of-science/article/what-do-sexes-have-to-do-with-models-of-sexual-selection/BE4FA2DA65882483AE333088C2472450 |journal=Philosophy of Science |language=en |pages=1–19 |doi=10.1017/psa.2023.86 |issn=0031-8248}}}} [[User:D6194c-1cc|D6194c-1cc]] ([[User talk:D6194c-1cc|talk]]) 11:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:Gamete size and motility are phenotypes, so the debate about whether to use the gamete definition and multi-factorial definition is not a question about whether to "define sex as sex phenotype," but a question of which phenotypes to use in the definition. And the heart of the question before the Wikipedia editors is whether the biologists have a consensus on which phenotypes to use and how to combine them to determine sex. [[User:BrotherE|BrotherE]] ([[User talk:BrotherE|talk]]) 00:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
* Many of the sources for the multidimensional definition seem to be about the definition of sex in humans, which is both biological and cultural/social. This page is not primarily focused on humans and does not address cultural dimensions of sex. Perhaps we should consider adding a link to [[Human Sexuality]] in the preamble? |
|||
:A nit on wording: is it correct to say that sex is "the trait ''that determines''" gametes, rather than the trait ''of having'' such-and-such gametes? The former makes it seem like sex precedes gametes, but the rest of the article has it the other way around. |
|||
:[[User:Carleas|Carleas]] ([[User talk:Carleas|talk]]) 14:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC) {{sbb}} |
|||
::Yes, @[[User:Carleas|Carleas]], you're right. That's been discussed above, at length. These are very human-centric sources, and they're really talking about sex phenotype rather than sex ''per se''. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::Many, but not all. Several of the multifactoral sources explicitly mention non-human animals. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 21:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
* Many of the sources for a multifactoral definition seem weak, circular, or overtly ideological, or the quoting does not reveal the full picture. For example, [https://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/terms/sex.html this cited Stanford website] is claimed as multi-factoral, but actually states: |
|||
:Also I don’t the examples of fish changing their sex or some species having simultaneous hermaphrodites is not what’s political. It’s sex with regards to humans that’s political. |
|||
: {{tqb|the egg-sperm distinction is the basis for distinguishing between females and males.}} |
|||
: Very few sources have been included presenting the opposing, overwhelmingly well-established picture, grounded in evolutionary biology, but they are easy to find. For example [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25323972/ this (2014) on the evolutionary benefit of two sexes, which has evolved independently multiple times throughout history]: |
|||
: {{tqb|Biologically, males are defined as the sex that produces the smaller gametes (e.g. sperm), implying that the male and female sexes only exist in species with gamete dimorphism (anisogamy). Our ancestors were isogamous, meaning that only one gamete size was produced. The question of the evolutionary origin of males and females is then synonymous to asking what evolutionary pressures caused gamete sizes to diverge. }} |
|||
: Or [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202200173 this one (2022)], which explicitly rejects the multi-factoral approach as confusing "sex" with "sex differentiation", and clearly defines sex itself thus: |
|||
: {{tqb | Biological sex is defined as a binary variable in every sexually reproducing plant and animal species. With a few exceptions, all sexually reproducing organisms generate exactly two types of gametes that are distinguished by their difference in size: females, by definition, produce large gametes (eggs) and males, by definition, produce small and usually motile gametes (sperm).[9-12]}} |
|||
: [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 15:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::From Chapter 2 of [https://www.routledge.com/Sex-and-Gender-A-Contemporary-Reader/Sullivan-Todd/p/book/9781032261195 Sex and Gender: A Contemporary Reader]: |
|||
::On defining sex: |
|||
::{{tqb|The aim of this chapter is to review the biological understanding of the phenomenon that is sex. In the first section, we ask the question: Why does sex exist? We explain its evolutionary origins and the binary gamete system on which sex— 'female' and `male'—is founded. We explore some of the diversity of sex in the natural world yet understand how reproductive bodies are organised around two functional reproductive roles.}} |
|||
::[...] |
|||
::{{tqb|From an evolutionary perspective, we have established what sex is (reproductive role by reference to gamete type) and that, despite the fascinating manifestations of the two sexes within individuals and within populations, there are only two sexes. }} |
|||
::On whether there is a "new consensus" on the meaning of sex: |
|||
::{{tqb| we challenge the premise that some new scientific consensus on sex has emerged. Writing for DW, Sterzik (2021) claims that the broad scientific consensus now looks different: sex is a spectrum'. The definitions and understandings of sex we present in this chapter are uncontroversial, appearing in dictionaries, key biology textbooks and medical consensus statements like that issued by the Endocrine Society (Barghava et al. 2021). There is a vast literature which depends, explicitly or implicitly, on these understandings of sex. Searches on the scientific publication database PubMed for 'male' [AND] 'sperm' or 'female' [AND] 'egg' retrieve around 100,000 results each, including numerous and recent publications from Nobel laureates in physiology and medicine and a huge array of biological and medical disciplines. Searches of the PubMed database (performed on 9 July 2022) for phrases like 'bimodal sex', 'spectrum of sex' or 'sex is a social construct' generate no results in the biological or medical literature, although two close matches for 'sex is a spectrum' are found. The first is a study of how sex (female or male) affects the spectrum of genetic variations acquired in the X chromosome over a lifespan (Agarwal and Przeworski 2019). The second is a study of how foetal sex (female or male) affects the spectrum of placental conditions experienced during pregnancy (Murji et al 2012). Neither study demonstrates any confusion about the nature of sex, and both exemplify the importance of understanding sex in a clinical setting. It seems that claims of a new scientific consensus—or the milder assertion of an academic debate — regarding sex are overblown and manufactured by public commentators to generate an appeal to authority. }} |
|||
::On the fundamental error of redefining sex as a set of traits: |
|||
::{{tqb|A related argument evokes sex characteristics that can overlap between the sexes to attempt to demonstrate that 'there is no one parameter that makes a person biologically male or female' (Elsesser 2020). It is true that many females are taller than many males, and that some males have low levels of testosterone more typical of females. However, such arguments fail to acknowledge a point we have already addressed: we only know that males are typically taller and have higher testosterone levels than females if we have a reference characteristic for sex, independent of height and testosterone level, by which to divide and measure people. And it is centuries of study of the anatomic and molecular organisation of the human species around sex as a biological function that serves as the anchor point. Put simply, it would be impossible to claim that low and high testosterone levels are correlated with being female and male, respectively, unless the categories female and male already had established meanings that testosterone levels were being correlated with. The same holds for every other sex correlate.}} [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 17:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::First of all, you are extremely cherrypicking the Stanford definition. The full quote you're cherrypicking from is: |
|||
::{{tq2|Sex may be defined according to: 1. Genetic sex determination: chromosomal make-up, generally XX/XY for most mammals. The presence of sex-determining genes means that every nucleated human cell has a sex. 2. Gametes: germ cells. In species that produce two morphologically distinct types of gametes, the egg-sperm distinction is the basis for distinguishing between females and males. 3. Morphology: physical traits that differentiate female and male...}} |
|||
::Or in other words, they are giving three different definitions of sex as part of a broader point that there is no single definition of sex. |
|||
::Your next two sources I admit are valid, but they're only two [[WP:PRIMARY]] papers. And one explicitly says that it's arguing against a growing new consensus. |
|||
::''Sex & Gender: A Contemporary Reader'' appears to be a collection of sociology essays and so its relevance to an article on biology seems shaky. I'm also suspicious that two of the essays are from [[Kathleen Stock]] and [[Lisa Littman]], who, just look at their pages for why I suspect both of them may have strongly biased views on this topic to say the least. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 21:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{tq|The full quote you're cherrypicking from is:}} |
|||
:::I'm pointing out this is contradictory, and omitting that this source very clearly states gametes are the whole basis of male and female overrides the rest, which is about sex ''determination'', not what sex ''is''. |
|||
:::{{tq|a growing new consensus}} |
|||
:::It says "increasing". It does not say a consensus, and certainly not a biological consensus which it specifically refutes thus: |
|||
:::{{tqb| it is consensus among biologists that the majority of sexually reproducing multicellular organisms have exactly two evolutionary strategies to generate offspring, a female one and a male one}} |
|||
:::And it notes that these increasing moves are not about biology, but about creating an "inclusive environment for gender-diverse people". More on this below. |
|||
:::{{tq|Sex & Gender: A Contemporary Reader appears to be a collection of sociology essays}} |
|||
:::It is an expansive book covering eg. sociology, philosophy, biology and law, with subject-matter chapters written by different authors. Ad hominem attacks on the authors of other chapters have no bearing on the present citations from chapter 2, which was written by a developmental biologist and heavily cites and assesses the primary literature. Basically, this is a recent, high quality [[WP:RS]] that has already performed a literature review as to whether there is a "new consensus" on sex, and come to the conclusion again that no, there is not. |
|||
:::Meanwhile the multifactoral citations you've provided include eg. one attributed to "the CDC", but that actually is from a terminology page on a section of their website about "Health Considerations for LGBTQ Youth", which cites two dead links, and that includes other contested and quite possibly offensive definitions like: |
|||
:::{{tqb|Lesbian: A woman who is '''primarily''' attracted to other women.}} |
|||
:::Another statement is a "No Place For Transphobia" response by the AAA to the cancellation of an event whose whole point was to talk about sex ("Let’s Talk about Sex Baby: Why biological sex remains a necessary analytic category in anthropology"). Again - not a high quality biology source, just some political grandstanding on a website in a disputed area of contemporary politics. |
|||
:::Another, sourced to the APA, is from a guide to working with transgender patients, on a page whose principal focus seems to be listing neopronouns like xe/xir. |
|||
:::And another is WPATH. |
|||
:::Assessing these sources, this is representative of exactly the increasing (anthropocentric) moves to redefine sex to create an "inclusive environment" for "gender diverse" people which two of the sources note. You are not providing overwhelming citations demonstrating a changing biological consensus on what sex actually is, but rather that many of these sources simply demonstrate the shifting values (especially in the US) around whether we consider sex to be ''something else instead'' because it is politic to do so. [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 09:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
* {{u|Plantdrew}} {{u|Faendalimas}} Both of you mention XY/XX chromosomes in your answer. Are you both aware that's not an option under consideration? It's barely present in reliable sources at all as a definition of sex, exactly because it's not the only sex-determination system. |
|||
: Also, both of you and {{u|Seraphimblade}} voted for disambiguation, so could you please clarify disambiguation between what and what? We still need an article on biological sex in general, because it's a topic that appears in the sources quite a lot. So in my view "disambiguation" just pushes the dispute back a step: there are some versions of it that I'd support and others that I wouldn't, based primarily on how our eventual article on biological sex defines sex. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 20:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::I did my last sentence said make one article about sex Biology and the other about sexuality. They are not the same and should be treated as such. Why you would propose an article on sex in biological organisms (a biology article) and not mention how they are different is not clear to me, in some species it is xx/xy in others it is zz/zw, or ww/zw and there are many others as such it should address them. I never said to keep it mammalocentric, in fact I said otherwise and it would be advisable not to do this as this is not a mammal encyclopedia. Cheers [[User:Faendalimas|<span style="color: #004730">Scott Thomson</span>]] (<small class="nickname">Faendalimas</small>) <sup>[[User talk:Faendalimas|<span style="color: maroon">talk</span>]]</sup> 20:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::I would've thought my mentioning the ZW system in the following sentence would have made it clear that I was aware that the XY system wasn't an option under consideration. This article is presently about the reproductive (gamete) definition of sex. Under that definition birds with identical sex chromosomes (ZZ) are males, mammals with identical chromosomes (XX) are females, and sequentially hermaphroditic fishes are male/female based on the gametes they produce at a particular point in time. |
|||
:::The sources for a multifactoral definition of sex are heavily anthropocentric (or mammalocentric). The XY system is the first (and often only) sex-determination system people learn about in school. Humans are the best studied organisms and we know that XY doesn't fully explain human sexes. Seeing that XY doesn't fully explain human sexes, anthropocentric sources propose a multifactoral definition. Non-anthropocentric sources would discuss non-XY systems (as does this article). ZW probably doesn't fully explain bird sexes. |
|||
:::Are there sources using multifactoral definitions that explain why ZZ birds are (typically) considered to be male and XX mammals are (typically) considered to be female? Are there multifactoral sources that consider non-XY systems at all? If there are, there should be an article about multifactoral definitions of sex in different organisms. Multifactoral sources that are focused on humans could be used for an article on multifactoral definitions of sex in humans. |
|||
:::I don't think this article is the primary topic of "sex" since it gets many incoming links that aren't at all about the topic of this article. If there were articles about multifactoral definitions of sex (in various organisms, or just in humans), I wouldn't consider the topic of this article to necessarily be the primary topic of [[biological sex]]. [[User:Plantdrew|Plantdrew]] ([[User talk:Plantdrew|talk]]) 21:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::I think there's also the ever-present question of "What would a reader typing in this term primarily expect to find information on?". If there's not one clear answer to that question, disambiguation is the best solution. In this case, I think a substantial number of readers who type "sex" into the search bar may expect to find information on [[sexual reproduction]] and/or [[sexual intercourse]] rather than [[sexual dimorphism]]. I don't think any one of those are the unambiguously clear answer to "This is what a reader who types 'Sex' into the search bar will generally expect to find", so, when I saw disambiguation mentioned as a possible solution, I think it probably is the best of those available. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 22:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Not necessarily; there's also the [[WP:Broad-concept article]]. It's quite possible that that may be a better solution than disambiguation, and I invite anyone who leans toward "disambiguation" to revisit [[WP:BCA]] and see what you think. I think it would be ideal. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 06:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Given how relatively disparate some of those concepts are, do you think a single article could reasonably cover all three of them without being rather disjointed? That would be a good solution if possible, but I can't think of a good way off the top of my head to do that. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 04:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: Yes, absolutely. This is not a [[Mercury]] case, where the concepts have nothing to do with each other. The '[[Particle]]' example at [[WP:DABCONPHYS|BCA]] is illustrative, and pretty similar to this one, in the sense that it is a concept that is used to address many different, but related ideas in a scientific field (in this case, several closely related fields). Note that [[Particle]] is a short article: longer than a stub, but not by much. There is no need to pack everything into [[Particle]]—it's just an intro to the general concept of "Particle" in physics with links to the more specific meanings—just as there is no reason to pack everything into [[Sex]]. |
|||
::::::: I think "Sex" should be handled just like [[Particle]] , with a smallish article introducing several meanings, with plenty of links leading to other articles, some of which might be [[WP:PARENDIS|parenthetically disambiguated]] versions of the title "Sex". That would essentially finesse this entire Rfc, not to mention a lot of the endless debate about what "Sex" means, and what to say about it. Yes it means a lot of things; no we shouldn't squeeze it all into one article, and no we shouldn't recycle the same Talk page discussions, endlessly arguing about it. We should acknowledge the polysemy, and deal with it via a BCA. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 01:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: Just noticed Loki's comment (00:31, 15 Nov), "{{xt|If you mean <nowiki>[[this]], or [[that]], or [[that-over-there]]...</nowiki>}}": exactly—if there's still argument about what an article means that's been around since 2001, then there's a problem, and I'm not sure another 22 years of discussion will solve it. Time for another approach. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 01:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::A broad concept article would include [[sexual intercourse]]? That's what hundreds of incoming links to this title intend. And that seems too broad to really be a single concept (sex/sexual intercourse have are concepts with an etymological relationship, but so is the planet/diety named Mercury). [[User:Plantdrew|Plantdrew]] ([[User talk:Plantdrew|talk]]) 02:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Yeah, same issue with this as Plantdrew. |
|||
::::::::I agree that you could have an article encompassing reproductive sex, hormonal sex, phenotypical sex, chromosonal sex, etc etc. And you could also have an article encompassing [[sexual intercourse]], [[sexual reproduction]], and [[human sexuality]], possibly among others. But I don't think you could do both of those things in one article. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 02:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::@[[User:Faendalimas|Scott Thomson]] If you mean [[sexual reproduction]], [[sexual intercourse]] or [[human sexuality]] we already have separate articles for those. That's not what this RFC is about (though I agree they should go on a disambiguation page if we make one). |
|||
:::@[[User:Plantdrew|Plantdrew]] As far as I can tell, the issues that are causing biologists to reevaluate this in humans also apply in non-human animals, and are things like "we're already saying that human women post-menopause are still women, but the gamete definition claims otherwise". Some of the sources which use definitions like this are explicit about applying it to non-human animals, while others are clearly medical sources intended to be applied in humans. |
|||
:::@[[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] While that's a separate issue from the reason I originally started this RFC, I'd be alright with merging this page into [[sexual dimorphism]] and having this page be a disambiguation page between that and [[sexual intercourse]]/[[sexual reproduction]]. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 00:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::Gamete-based definitions do not require lifelong gamete production, and they never define which individual is a woman. They define which ''group'' is conventionally called ''female''. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 03:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The groups are conventionally defined across different traits though. An organism can be reproductively male and phenotypically female and scientific source materials would likely specify or imply the trait(s) they’re referencing. [[User:Editor0525|Editor0525]] ([[User talk:Editor0525|talk]]) 04:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::"Phenotypically female" is established in an organism with reference to gametes. That's how you know what the female phenotype is, and how a male organism can still be male with phenotypically female features. [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 09:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::@[[User:Editor0525|Editor0525]], I'm not sure what you're saying with {{xt|An organism can be reproductively male and phenotypically female}}. That sounds like "An organism can produce sperm from ovaries". Gonads and internal anatomy are also part of the phenotype. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::for info: I mentioned sex reversals in nature and that my post grad supervisor had a paper in Nature on this, here is the link to it[https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14574], for anyone interested. Cheers [[User:Faendalimas|<span style="color: #004730">Scott Thomson</span>]] (<small class="nickname">Faendalimas</small>) <sup>[[User talk:Faendalimas|<span style="color: maroon">talk</span>]]</sup> 20:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::@[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] With all due respect here, I pinged three people who I'm asking for responses from. I understand that you disagree with me but you don't need to respond to every thread. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 05:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::no probs I received this via the biology portal and I am a biologist so I see it through that lens. Cheers [[User:Faendalimas|<span style="color: #004730">Scott Thomson</span>]] (<small class="nickname">Faendalimas</small>) <sup>[[User talk:Faendalimas|<span style="color: maroon">talk</span>]]</sup> 12:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
* Has there been some sort of [[WP:CANVASSING]] going on? I notice there have been a bunch of !votes that are all going the same way from users with very low edit counts. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 01:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*: Starting with some data: checking [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2023-11-01&end=2023-11-18&scale=log&pages=Talk:Sex%7CTalk:Israel%7CTalk:Christopher_Columbus%7CTalk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war page views at four Talk pages] with open Rfc's (check 'log scale' for easier viewing), I dont see a smoking gun. That's not a proof of anything, it's just a first attempt to try to find evidence, if there is any. A good next step, would be to create a [[Google Custom Search Engine]] of popular social media and other forums where the troops are often mustered for this kind of thing, and then search your CSE for "wikipedia NEAR Talk:Sex" and see what you get (it's easy; completely web-based). [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 02:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::I've found some evidence of off-wiki canvassing happening on Twitter, attempting to draw editors with a specific POV to this discussion. I'll not be posting any direct links here, as I don't want to risk [[WP:OUTING|outing]] any identifiable editors, however I will provide this info to a CU or ArbCom if requested. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 21:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:::I have too. See my talk page. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 21:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:::Alright, I've gone through the discussion and added canvassed tags to the users that are most obviously canvassed (ones with extremely low edit counts or who popped up from long hiatuses to vote in this RFC). But I note that the earliest of the Twitter threads was posted at about 7:00pm UTC on Wednesday, November 15th, so any comment posted after then could potentially be a result of users with more established accounts having seen something about this on Twitter. I urge the closer, whoever it is, to look even more closely at the actual argumentation for each side than normal, and to not make this a simple vote. |
|||
*:::Also, {{u|Beczky}} has said on my talk page they're the same user that reported the canvassing on my talk page, and has also said they came from the Twitter thread to oppose the canvassed opinions. And like I told them on my page, I don't really think they've done anything wrong per se (in fact I'm grateful for being told about this), but that still definitely counts as being canvassed, so I tagged them even though they do actually have a pretty substantial reasoning for their !vote. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 00:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::::Loki says on their talk page that "extremely low edit counts" is less than 500, a level of participation that applies to more than 99% of all registered editors. They did not tag editors in the top 1%. |
|||
*::::That said, I have no doubt that some editors heard about this discussion off wiki, and I suspect that we would be hearing from far more of them if participation on this page didn't already exclude brand-new accounts and unregistered editors. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::First of all, you're putting words in my mouth. You asked if that was the threshold, and I said that I didn't have an exact threshold but that was a reasonable estimate. I already gave my full criteria above: {{tq|[editors] with extremely low edit counts or who popped up from long hiatuses to vote in this RFC}}. I looked at the edit histories of every editor who voted and tagged any that seemed especially odd. And I really don't think any of my decisions are arguable: besides the edit counts, one of the editors I tagged came out of a ''six-year-long hiatus'' to vote on this RFC and has not edited once since. |
|||
*:::::I could have tagged even more: there's a few editors above who don't normally edit in any of the topic areas this RFC pertains to, and who voted right at the time the tweets in question were attracting people to this page. But that wasn't clear enough evidence for me to be comfortable tagging any of those people. |
|||
*:::::Ultimately, this is a decision that will have to be reexamined by the closer anyway, because, like I've said, it's very possible that several of the longer-standing users on this page saw it from Twitter. There's a burst of votes on the 15th and 16th which matches perfectly with the burst in activity from the tweet (see Mathglot's graph above). [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 00:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::[[User talk:LokiTheLiar#c-WhatamIdoing-20231121003300-Beczky-20231121002900|I said]]: "at a glance, it looks like you've accused all participants with fewer than 500 edits". |
|||
*::::::[[User talk:LokiTheLiar#c-LokiTheLiar-20231121004000-WhatamIdoing-20231121003300|You replied]]: "There wasn't a particular edit number I had in mind, but it basically was that, yes." |
|||
*::::::You will have to forgive me for assuming that "yes" means "yes". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 01:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::Well, the objection here is that "more-or-less" doesn't mean "yes, that's the precise criteria I used", but it's not really worth arguing about. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 01:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:It's [https://manifold.markets/IsaacKing/will-the-campaign-to-redefine-the-c-62b63b67df66 being discussed on Manifold], but that's likely a consequence of the canvassing rather than a progenitor. (No particular answer is being pushed there, and I think Manifold users are generally well-behaved enough to not disrupt a Wikipedia vote.) I don't know where it originally came from, an anonymous user was the first to create a market on it. [[User:KingSupernova|KingSupernova]] ([[User talk:KingSupernova|talk]]) 07:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
* Comment: there is more than one article on the topic of sex or sex versus gender -- so having difference in some sources might just be that those links apply somewhere else. Not saying it's so, just saying that a source on sex doesn't necessarily go into *this* article on sex. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 14:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[User:TrueQuantum]] Frankly I don't recognize your characterisation of this discussion as a political war between activists. No way are we activists. Nor are the statements made here subjective viewpoints. Those accusations are frankly false. The primary objective of the editors of this article has been to set out the facts as they are understood and supported by scientists, and specifically to avoid quibbling over political and sociological positions punted by activists. Some other things you say are also inaccurate, for example "Some species, like algae and cyanobacteria, reproduce asexually by cloning and there is no biological sex." That statement puts algae together with cyanobacteria, and that is clearly wrong. Cyanobacteria are prokaryotes and do not do sex. Algae are eukaryotes and can reproduce both sexually and asexually, as can many, many other members of the clade Viridiplantae, including flowering plants. Please stick to verifiable facts. This is as fact-based and politics-free an article as the editors can make it, so please don't troll us with your nonsense. [[user:Plantsurfer|<span style="background-color:green;color:cyan">Plant</span><span style="background-color:cyan;color:blue;">surfer</span>]] 20:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* How does ({{tq|"'''Sex''' is a biological construct based on traits including (...)"}} go together with [[WP:ISATERMFOR]]? Perhaps it could be more agreeable to phrase it without explicitly saying "construct", e.g. just {{tq|"'''Sex''' is a set of traits including (...)"}} or something like that. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 21:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::Plantsurfer I don’t think this user was commenting this down as a way to troll. I think we just commenting this down due to some past discussions on this article.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 23:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:Saying that something is [[Social construct|construct]] (I believe what's meant by ''biological construct'' is "a thing society has decided is a thing, about something involving biology") isn't quite like saying that it's a term for something. |
|||
*:''Influenza'' happens to be a term for something that isn't a construct ([[Influenza A virus]] would exist and infect humans even if society weirdly agreed that it didn't exist and didn't infect us); ''money'' happens to be a term for something that is a construct (it would be valueless except that we've all decided that it has value). We write the articles to say "Influenza is a disease" and "Money is a way to pay for stuff". |
|||
*:The latter could be written as "Money is a construct about how to pay for stuff" (after all, there's no inherent reason why certain pieces of paper should be accepted as a way to pay for stuff). To say that "Money is a construct about payments" is to say "Money is a thing we've all agreed is about payments..."; to say that sex is a construct based on traits is to say "Sex is a thing we've all agreed is based on traits..." [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::Would [[syndrome]] be a better word in this context than "construct"? Articles for human sex chromosome aneuploidies such as [[Turner syndrome]] and [[Klinefelter syndrome]] are titled with "syndrome". [[User:Plantdrew|Plantdrew]] ([[User talk:Plantdrew|talk]]) 05:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:::It seems to me that "(syndrome)" would be a decent disambiguation term for an article about how sex is determined in individuals of various species. "(anisogamy)" could be used to disambiguate an article covering species that have a particular [[sex-determination system]] that can be applied to most individuals. [[User:Plantdrew|Plantdrew]] ([[User talk:Plantdrew|talk]]) 05:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::: Strongly opposed to 'syndrome' as a disambig term, as it means "disorder" or "disease", so, definitely not. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 01:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::::A syndrome isn't necessarily a disease; strictly speaking, it is a characteristic collection of multiple signs and symptoms. Since the biologists declare that this half is male and that half is female based on a single factor (production of sperm vs egg), it's not really a "syndrome". I suppose one could stretch it a little and claim that the signs associated with sexual dimorphism constitute "a syndrome", such that I have "female syndrome", but that sounds a bit like declaring that one overly cheerful co-worker to have "cheerful morning person syndrome". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::::: Strictly speaking, you're right, but it's irrelevant. The point was, that a syndrome is an abnormal condition, and sex (in any of the meanings discussed above, take your pick) is not. Thus whereas titling or disambiguating "Turner..." and "Klinefelter...'" with ''syndrome'' is perfectly appropriate, it would be anathema for this article. Even more strictly speaking, and following this sidebar on what ''syndrome'' means to its conclusion: yes, a syndrome is a collection of s&s as you point out, but that's not all: more specifically, it is [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1480257/ a collection of s&s which have no known mechanism]; i.e., they appear to co-occur for reasons we don't understand. We talk about [[pneumonia]]—not [[pneumonia syndrome]]—because we understand the mechanism; but we talk about [[idiopathic pneumonia syndrome]] because we don't. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 19:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::I agree that the word wouldn't be understood. It's a bit like the [[Genesis creation myth]] problem: It really is a myth, using that word as defined by scholars, but readers would hear "story that is not true" instead of "story of inestimably large social significance". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::: Clarification: by "for reasons we don't understand", I meant "for reasons scholars in medical science don't understand", not the average reader. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 22:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
=== Meta === |
|||
:::Hi Plantsurfer I recommend you take a deep breath and calm down. Then, once you have composed yourself, re-read what you wrote down in the heat of passion. My comment was not meant to troll anyone but to strengthen the objectivity of this article and to center our community of editors on the facts. And with regard to your comment against me, some species of algae do reproduce asexually. As do cyanobacteria. I never put the two species together to confuse the two. By the same token, I can also say "Some species, like fungi and humans, reproduce sexually." Does that mean I am confusing you with a mushroom? No, I don't think so. [[User:TrueQuantum|TrueQuantum]] ([[User talk:TrueQuantum|talk]]) 22:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
This article is tagged as being within the scope of these content WikiProjects: |
|||
::::@[[User:TrueQuantum|TrueQuantum]], in your experience, do people actually calm down when you tell them to? I don't think that works for most people. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* [[WP:WikiProject Biology]] |
|||
*The claim that biological sex is a "spectrum", or that it is "not binary", is simply nonexistent in the enormous peer-reviewed biology literature. They are nonsensical: What is the X axis of this spectrum? What are these third, etc. sexes and what role do they play in reproduction? All such statements exist in content whose main point is about humans and are making a sociopolitical argument. I recommend this Aeon article by philosopher of biology [[Paul E. Griffiths]]: [https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity] As a non-academic source, it is not suitable to cite in the article, but it should concisely clarify these matters for you and is consistent with the peer-reviewed biology literature. I'm not seeing anywhere near the amount of political argument above that you are, either. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 04:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* [[WP:WikiProject Sexuality]] |
|||
* [[WP:WikiProject Physiology]] |
|||
Loki has notified these WikiProjects: |
|||
::My entire point here is that it literally isn't our place to argue whether biological sex is a spectrum or whether it is binary. That's not what we are supposed to do as editors on Wikipedia. Furthermore, this seems like a very human-centric argument when the article is about biological sex for all species of life on Earth. And when it comes to all forms of diverse life, biological sex comes in all kinds of categories that has nothing to do with human beings. Not all lifeforms are either male or female. Some, especially dioecious plants, are literally both. Some, like algae or cyanobacteria, can reproduce asexually and can be neither. Some lifeforms start off female and produce eggs and then turn into males that produce sperm. We should write this article without tainting it with subjective biases of whether sex is a spectrum or binary because it really depends on the species and these labels are meaningless. [[User:TrueQuantum|TrueQuantum]] ([[User talk:TrueQuantum|talk]]) 05:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::Good, I'm glad we agree that "it literally isn't our place to argue whether biological sex is a spectrum" and that we should avoid being "human-centric". I shared that article to clarify why the article and the peer reviewed literature says what it does. Let's just follow the best sources and have that be what the article says. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 06:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* [[WP:WikiProject Biology]] |
|||
::Crossroads in response to that I found [[http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18495/1/Penultimate-Franklin-Hall-The-Animal-Sexes-as-Explanatory-Kinds.pdf this]] it also addresses some things regarding the topic. The author of the source I’m presenting is even aware that [[Joan Roughgarden]] agrees with the claims presented in this article.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 04:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* [[WP:WikiProject Medicine]] |
|||
::Are you talking about "biological sex" in the sense of how we classify all mammals, or in the sense of a label we put only on those mammals that are able to contribute gametes to the next generation? For example, if a mammal is born with a condition that renders it absolutely sterile, does it have a biological sex in your model? Or could that mammal be biologically male or biologically female anyway? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies]] |
|||
:::This seems to be going headlong into [[WP:FORUM]] territory, but I will say that a sterile mammal still has a sex that can be detected from its genotype or the rest of its [[phenotype]]. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 06:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
I will go notify the ones that were skipped. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{u|TrueQuantum}} yes that’s why some of the arguments over that fail. Like people who make arguments that biological sex is a spectrum only think about humans. |
|||
And the binary argument fails at times too because it ignores it varies from species.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 05:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:The RFC was advertised for 30 days. I have listed this discussion (without any comment) at [[Wikipedia:Closure requests#Sex#RFC: Definition of Sex]]. It may be days or weeks before anyone volunteers to summarize the discussion, and until then, there is no prohibition on continuing the discussion as/if/when people feel like it. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
I am very much inclined to close this discussion per [[WP:NOTFORUM]], as there is still nothing specific here about the article text and this appears to be getting more and more FORUMy. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 06:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{rfc bottom}} |
|||
== Hermaphrodites == |
|||
::::The problem with the spectrum idea is that it confuses the taxonomy. Hermaphrodite is not a separate sex. It is both of the two binary possibilities together in one organism. It is a third category of sexuality but not a third sex. Sequential dioecy is another type of breeding system but not a third sex. In plants there may be two or more mating types but they do not equate to multiple sexes. In double fertilization of flowering plants there are still only two sexes. Ultimately only two gametes are ever required to make a zygote, so sex is binary almost by definition.[[user:Plantsurfer|<span style="background-color:green;color:cyan">Plant</span><span style="background-color:cyan;color:blue;">surfer</span>]] 08:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I think we as editors must be agnostic to spectrum vs binary and not have a prejudice against either. Plus when it comes to all biological species on Earth, seems as though there are 4 categories: asexual, male, female, hermaphrodite/intersex. That's more than two. Furthermore, you said there is no such thing as a third sex. That's definitely open to interpretation. In fact, I would argue that some lifeforms on Earth definitely do have a third sex. Take a look at the process of apogamy in primitive plants like ferns. In fact, if you look at the fern sexual reproductive life cycle, the adult diploid fern makes halpoid spores that grow into gametophytes that are haploid. These gametophytes produce both male sperm and female eggs (the binary) which under moist conditions can join together to form a diploid embryo that grows into a diploid adult fern. However, the haploid gametophyte can grow into a diploid adult fern without fertilization in a process called apogamy. That means the spore (a haploid cell) can grow into a full adult fern (diploid) without needing to form a male sperm or a female egg. Look at the diversity of life and the different ways organisms can reproduce. Humans are but one species on Earth. [[User:TrueQuantum|TrueQuantum]] ([[User talk:TrueQuantum|talk]]) 16:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Apogamy does not involve a third sex. It involves just one sex (female) operating in an asexual reproductive process, bypassing the formation of a zygote. As you say, no fertilization involved, ergo not sexual reproduction. I think there is confusion here between sex as defined by this article and the correlated expression of sexuality in behaviour and psychology, secondary sexual anatomy and morphology, sexual cycles etc. In many of these respects I agree that there is a spectrum, not just in humans but in many other species. But in terms of sex defined by type of gametes, functionally there are in the end only two - an ovum (female) combines with a sperm (male) to form a zygote. In most cases, the true, fundamental difference between the two is not just size but that the sperm donates all of its chromosomes and cytoplasm to the ovum. That is broadly true across eukaryotes. [[user:Plantsurfer|<span style="background-color:green;color:cyan">Plant</span><span style="background-color:cyan;color:blue;">surfer</span>]] 17:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Gametophytes make female eggs and male sperm. If they do not produce an egg and bypass the formation of a zygote, yet are haploid and become diploid, who is to say that the gametophyte is a female. It's not an egg. It came from a haploid spore so it isn't a clone of the parent. Is the definition of a "female" then not just the size of the gametes or type of gametes produced but the fact that it is a "mother?" Having defined categories for all lifeforms on Earth and making them conform to human binary expectations is how we get into these weird twisting and turning scenarios. That's why it's best to be agnostic and stick to the wide variety of reliable sources in all formats. Moreover, ferns and plants are just one example. Look at kleptogenesis that requires sexual reproduction between different species of a related taxon and different ploidy levels at different generations. There are so many variations here that go beyond humans. [[User:TrueQuantum|TrueQuantum]] ([[User talk:TrueQuantum|talk]]) 17:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Plantsurfer|Plantsurfer]] and [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]], I'd like to have a simple, everyday example in the lead that helps people (including older kids) understand that hermaphroditism is normal state for some organisms. In popular culture, it tends to be sensationalized in a [[freak show]] kind of way, and I think that waving vaguely in the direction of flowering plants or something else of your choosing would be helpful. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{u|TrueQuantum}} just to make sure you are aware intersex is a term usually applied to [[gonochoric]] species.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 16:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't know why you think waving vaguely towards a populist view is the solution. Land plants have been swinging both ways for half a billion years, and their aquatic ancestors for twice that. Hermaphroditism is THE NORM in flowering plants. Single-sex flowering plants are in the vast minority, but in-between there is complexity that has no parallel at all in human sexuality.[[user:Plantsurfer|<span style="background-color:green;color:cyan">Plant</span><span style="background-color:cyan;color:blue;">surfer</span>]] 19:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
::I don't think that the first paragraph has much room for complexity. I'd like that sentence to point attention towards plants (or, really, any example that you and Peter think is a good idea). I'd rather that the stereotypical fourteen-year-old boy, upon encountering the word ''hermaphrodite'' in the first paragraph was nudged towards thinking "Oh, right, that drawing of pistils and stamens we had to do in biology class" instead of "The guys at school were telling a funny story last week". |
|||
: I learned some things reading this, and I'd love to read more about it. But not here. Collapsed per [[WP:NOTFORUM]]. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 18:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::The end of that paragraph currently says just "An organism that produces both types of gamete is [[hermaphrodite]]." I think some slight addition, like "such as most plants", would help. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes, I agree with that. I suggest changing "An organism that produces both types of gamete is hermaphrodite." to "Organisms that produce both types of gametes, such as most flowering plants, are [[hermaphrodite]] or [[monoecy|monoecious]]." That should be covered by citation 3. |
|||
:::I don't like the wording of the next sentence - "In non-hermaphroditic species, . ." I suggest changing it to "In [[dioecy|dioecious]] species, . ." or "In species with separate sexes, ."[[user:Plantsurfer|<span style="background-color:green;color:cyan">Plant</span><span style="background-color:cyan;color:blue;">surfer</span>]] 00:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Perhaps "In species with separate sexes ([[Dioecious|''dioecious'']])..."? That way people learn the word, but also know we're talking about. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::While I'm all for covering plants, alternation of generations (and exactly where plant gametes are being produced) wasn't something I understood until college. Hermaphoditism in gastropods and worms was something I understood in high school. [[User:Plantdrew|Plantdrew]] ([[User talk:Plantdrew|talk]]) 03:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I agree with {{U|Plantdrew}}. Yes, it's good to cover plants. However, doing so accurately in one or two sentences is very difficult because of alternation of generations and the overwhelming dominance of the sporophyte generation in vascular plants. For animals and bryophytes the statement "An organism that produces both types of gametes is [[hermaphrodite]]" is correct (but it's [[monoicy]] not monoecy in bryophytes). Maybe "A [[hermaphrodite]] organism is one that produces both types of gametes, either directly as in animals or indirectly as in vascular plants" without mentioning monoecious? [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 07:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I think you are overthinking it. The sentence I offered above specified flowering plants. I don't think it is necessary to cover the entirety of sexual complexity in plants, merely to provide an example that covers the overwhelming majority.[[user:Plantsurfer|<span style="background-color:green;color:cyan">Plant</span><span style="background-color:cyan;color:blue;">surfer</span>]] 12:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Consider the definitions in ''The Kew Plant Glossary''. On p. 54, "'''hermaphrodite''', bisexual plant with stamens and pistil in the same flower", and on p. 20 "'''bisexual''', having both sexes in the same flower, or in the same inflorescence." The point is that applied to flowering plants, ''hermaphrodite'' does not mean 'producing both kinds of gamete', it means, in lay language, 'having both stamens and pistils in the same flower' or more technically 'having both sexes of gametophyte in the same flower'. Confusing gametophytes with gametes leads to the error of calling pollen ''sperm''. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 12:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Yes, Heslop-Harrison (1972) emphasised that sexuality is a gametophytic property, but control of the determination of the sex of gametophytes in heterosporous plants is exerted by the sporophyte.<ref name=JHH-1972/>{{rp|138-139}} JH-H says "'''Customarily''', monomorphic, monoclinous species are termed hermaphrodite, and monomorphic species with diclinous flowers, monoecious." He also says "Flowers either contain both stamens and carpels, in which case they are termed monoclinous or hermaphrodite*, or stamens or carpels alone, in which case they are said to be diclinous (sporophyte is dioecious) or unisexual." Stace 4th edition prefers to use the term bisexual instead of hermaphrodite. |
|||
:::::::::If necessary the complexities of land plant sexuality can be dissected at length in the body of an appropriate article. I don't think this is the one, and I definitely don't think the lead of [[Sex]] is the right place to air these concerns either. There is a clear, sourceable precedent for the use of the term 'hermaphrodite' to describe the sexuality of bisexual angiosperms, and I really don't think that is likely on its own to lead to the misconception that pollen=sperm. <ref name=JHH-1972>{{cite book|first=John |last=Heslop-Harrison |date=1972 |editor=F.C. Steward |title=Plant Physiology VIC a treatise: Physiology of Development from seeds to sexuality |chapter=Chapter 9 Sexuality in Angiosperms |pages=133-271 |publisher=Academic Press |location=London }}</ref> |
|||
:::::::::[[user:Plantsurfer|<span style="background-color:green;color:cyan">Plant</span><span style="background-color:cyan;color:blue;">surfer</span>]] 14:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::@[[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] and @[[User:Plantdrew|Plantdrew]], is it factually true that hermaphroditism is seen in: |
|||
:::::::* most (i.e., not all) |
|||
:::::::* flowering plants (i.e., not other kinds of plants)? |
|||
:::::::If alternating generations happens in less than 50% of flowering plants, that would not make the statement about "most flowering plants" be incorrect. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Alternation of generations occurs in ALL vascular plants. In fact it is true for all land plants and many algae. |
|||
::::::::Yes, 71% of Dicot species and 73% of monocot species are hermaphrodite. Only ~3% of monocots and 4% of dicots are dioecious. <ref name=JHH/>{{rp|140}} |
|||
::::::::Nothing I have said so far implies that hermaphroditism does not exist in other kinds of plants. [[user:Plantsurfer|<span style="background-color:green;color:cyan">Plant</span><span style="background-color:cyan;color:blue;">surfer</span>]] 18:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I had somehow formed the misimpression that hemaphroditism (=this individual plant produces both gametes) and alternating generations (this individual plant produces one, and its offspring will produce the other?) were mutually exclusive states. I see that I need to go read the article on this subject. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::@[[User|WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] Alternation of generations does not carry any implication that an individual plant produces only one type of gamete. Many plants (all of which have alternating generations) produce both types of gamete, not necessarily simultaneously. The alternation bit is about what happens when the mature sporophyte produces spores by meiosis - the spores are haploid and develop by repeated mitosis into a multicellular haploid gametophyte, (something unknown in animals), the function of which is, as the name implies, to produce gametes.[[user:Plantsurfer|<span style="background-color:green;color:cyan">Plant</span><span style="background-color:cyan;color:blue;">surfer</span>]] 19:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::WAID, sporophytes don't produce gametes directly, but (in flowering plants) do "host" gametophytes. Your misimpression gets at why I suggested not giving plants as an example of hermaphrodites for the lead. The majority of flatworms and annelid species are hermaphroditic and those can be given as examples in the lead without going into alternation of generations in plants. (I'd also suggested gastropods, but it appears that the majority of gastropod species aren't hermaphroditic (although some gastropod clades are almost exclusively hermaphroditic)). [[User:Plantdrew|Plantdrew]] ([[User talk:Plantdrew|talk]]) 20:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:About the plural vs singular ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sex&diff=prev&oldid=1206573758 this diff]): I think that using the singular tends to detract from the idea of hermaphroditism being normal. It's "that one weird individual" (did you see the photos of the [[honeycreeper]] with bilateral [[gynandromorphism]] last week? [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-extremely-rare-bird-is-half-female-half-male-180983442/]) instead of "yeah, that's just normal sexual development for a huge number of species". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|WhatamIdoing}} I think it needs to be absolutely clear that ''hermaphrodite'' applies in the first instance to individuals: each individual hermaphrodite can produce both eggs and sperm. Secondarily, a species can be described as hermaphroditic if <em>every</em> 'normal' member of the species is a hermaphrodite. That's why I prefer the singular there. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 09:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think the singular leads people to think about humans with unusual disorders of sex development, when we want them to be thinking about normal sexual development in non-mammalian species. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
== Sex differences in behaviour == |
|||
I think this section is weak and in my view unencyclopedic as it stands. There is weasel phrasing, a total lack of tangible examples and |
|||
statements that clearly state that there is controversy about aspects of this topic. WP should not be dealing with speculative issues. If there is no substantial consensus then, even if a source can be identified, we should not be covering it here. This is an encyclopedia, not a science blog or discussion group. [[user:Plantsurfer|<span style="background-color:green;color:cyan">Plant</span><span style="background-color:cyan;color:blue;">surfer</span>]] 19:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:I think it's problematic enough that I'm removing the section pending discussion. I haven't reviewed all the sources but the very first statement ("flirty") did not pass verification. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]]) 19:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::This is true of the third claim (that women are choosy about mating due to their large gametes) as well. I checked the source, and it never mentions such a thing. [[User:MPants at work|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MPants at work|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 20:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::{{re|Firefangledfeathers}} You beat me to removing the section before I could remind everyone that "This article is about sex in sexually reproducing organisms. '''Sex''' is a trait that determines an individual's reproductive function, male or female, in animals and plants that propagate their species through sexual reproduction." --[[User:Kent Dominic|Kent Dominic·(talk)]] 14:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::let me quote it. For some reason various versions of that book don't have page numbers. The one I read from my local library had page numbers tho. In [https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Evolution_of_Desire/BIOyDAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=The+evolution+of+desire+large+gametes&pg=PT28&printsec=frontcover this book] it says. |
|||
:::{{Font color|green|text=One reason women are often more choosy about mates stems from the most basic fact of reproductive biology-the biological definition of sex. Males are defined as the ones with small sex cells, females as the ones with large sex cells.}} Maybe you and I aren't interpreting what it says the same way.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 20:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::No, that's fine then. Due to the lack of page numbers, I was searching for "gamete" and only found one page, which didn't mention a behavioral aspect. I didn't see that passage until you linked to it. |
|||
::::One thing is sure, per [[WP:NPOV]] and the various gender-related elements of the [[culture war]], we need to be ''very'' careful about this section. I think re-writing it as a collaborative effort here is a good idea. If we go too far in one direction, we'll have every MGTOW and anti-feminist posting ridiculous edit requests here non-stop. If we go too far in the other direction, we'll be spewing bullshit. |
|||
::::We also need to avoid any [[evolutionary psychology|evo-psych]] sources, even though they talk about this subject a lot, as they're just this side of pseudoscience, and well short of the bar of "reliable science" that we want for writing encyclopedic content. [[User:MPants at work|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MPants at work|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 20:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== First sentence == |
|||
:::::Yeah I guess you are right we should be careful. Like I have heard evolutionary physiology has been criticized a lot. I looked at the criticism section for [[Evolutionary psychology]], and oh my lord I have never seen a criticism section so long before. I mean there is even an entire Wikipedia article on the [[Criticism of evolutionary psychology]]. But I'm not entirely sure it should be avoided at all. |
|||
:::::Maybe a better idea is to check on what [[Behavioral ecology]] sources say on the matter of differences in behavior between the sexes.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 21:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Generally, I think that editors spend too much time thinking about the first sentence, so if y'all think I'm overthinking this, just tell me. But I had an idea. |
|||
:::::''The Evolution of Desire'' is old-school evo-psych, FYI. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]]) 20:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Shit, you're right. So it's verifiable, but written by the guy whose "field of science" is built on the laughable postulates that humans could not possibly have evolved intelligence. |
|||
::::::No wonder it seemed fishy to me. I'd exclude it for now, and see if that sort of claim is found in actual biological/genetics/behavioral-eco sources. |
|||
::::::{{u|CycoMa}} Yes, Behavioral Ecology is perfectly fine. It's the real science version of evo-psych. [[User:MPants at work|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MPants at work|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 21:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I have no idea what "the laughable postulates that humans could not possibly have evolved intelligence" means. Evolutionary psychology doesn't deny that humans evolved intelligence. You're also overstating the criticism evolutionary psychology receives. It does get criticized for sure, but, from the meta-perspective we are supposed to aim for as editors, it isn't 'not real science' as you are implying, because we can't declare particular schools of thought within a scientific field to be bad in favor of others. I recommend ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=2KcbFVBSxWYC Sense and Nonsense: Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behaviour]'' as an overview. (If you just mean that you personally don't think it's scientific, then that's obviously fine; I personally am critical of parts of evolutionary psychology myself and lean towards human behavioral ecology and gene-culture coevolution for quite a bit, but I try not talk about my own views.) I agree that the best way to sidestep that whole issue is not to use sources specifically about humans in this general article. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 04:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::{{tq|Evolutionary psychology doesn't deny that humans evolved intelligence.}} It's partially based on [[Modularity of mind|the axiom]] that the human brain is comprised entirely of a wide variety of highly specialized neuronal structures, specially adapted to a specific mental task. Not only is this demonstrably untrue (see [[Prefrontal synthesis]]), but researchers outside of the field have demonstrated repeatedly that this is in conflict with the widely-observed facts that evolution tends to favor specialization and the human brain is [[brain plasticity|highly adaptable]]. Hell, that's such a broadly-accepted principle of evolution that there are even [[Wild Kratts|kid's educational cartoons]] structured around it. When modeled in an evolutionary simulation, this axiom has never produced the highly generalized neuronal structure that characterizes human brains, because evolution simply doesn't work that way. |
|||
::::::::The fact that it ignores that conclusion is also a negative mark. It's hard to take a "science" seriously when it can't even model itself on a logical framework. |
|||
::::::::{{tq|You're also overstating the criticism evolutionary psychology receives.}} That is hardly possible in such short comments as I have made. I'd have to write a 10,000 page book to even stand a ''chance'' of doing that. |
|||
::::::::{{tq|but, from the meta-perspective we are supposed to aim for as editors, it isn't 'not real science' as you are implying,}} Yes, it is. I wouldn't call it a pseudoscience, but it's certainly not up to snuff with established science. It's not taken seriously by virtually anyone outside the field, so ''we'' should not takes it's conclusions about anything seriously. It's made predictions which are wildly at odds with observation, to such an extent that their basic model of human psychology has been falsified for some time. Proponents present this as evidence that it's still a developing field, and while it may yet become a real science as it adjusts itself to better fit observations and abandons foundational axioms that don't produce workable predictions, and it ''is'' taken seriously by it's proponents who make genuine efforts to do their worth methodologically, it's no-where near the level of trustworthiness of established science at present. |
|||
::::::::The fact that there's such a strong overlap between the subset of psychometricians who endorse scientific racism and evo-psych is another red flag. |
|||
::::::::We can document it all we want, but we should ''never'' rely on publications from squarely within it's bailiwick for claims of fact. Work from around the edges of it (where it meets up with with behavioral-eco, established psychology, neurology and genetics) are frequently of a much higher quality than pure evo-psych works, and may prove useful as sources, though they're generally not ideal, as they come laden with the baggage of evo-psych's failings as a science. [[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MjolnirPants|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 14:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
The first sentence is currently: |
|||
:I personally think it’s okay to have a section on sex differences in behavior. |
|||
:I understand removing the controversial stuff in a way. But there are sources that have argued this for a longtime. |
|||
:I do kind of agree with you about the lack of examples. Like for some reason the sources say that males are more competitive for mating but don’t give examples for this. Like are they saying that male animals do this and not male plants or are they saying all males across species do this? |
|||
:I’m gonna save the section in my sandbox and see if I can work on it and fix it up a bit.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 20:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::The section as previously written mainly contained vague references only applicable to human sexual behaviour. That is the topic of another article, [[Human sexual activity]], and we are trying to make this article about Biological Sex. I am not denying that there are such things as differences in sexual behaviour. The annals of natural history are full of descriptions of it - male fish and birds build elaborate nests to attract mates: flightless vapourer moth females sit quiet and pump out pheromones to attract winged males with huge antennae, etc. There is plenty to say here without trying to explain the evolution of these behaviours, and particularly without trying to explain them in terms of human psychology. Plants are more difficult to cover, but they do have behaviours - only they do things a bit more slowly. One example from many is the flowering plant ''[[Silene noctiflora]]'' that opens its flowers only at night, for one night only, emitting a strong scent to attract pollinating insects. Another is the various plants in the family [[Araceae]] that entice files with metabolic heat and rotting meat odours, entrap them in a chamber full of female stigmas until they have pollinated them, then release them via anthers shedding pollen which the flies vector to other flowers, thus achieving cross pollination from hermaphroditic flowers. The variety is almost endless. [[user:Plantsurfer|<span style="background-color:green;color:cyan">Plant</span><span style="background-color:cyan;color:blue;">surfer</span>]] 22:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::Very well said. I agree (as I hinted at, above) that any such section in this article should be focused on the broad variety of observed behavioral difference across various [[Kingdom (biology)|kingdoms]], and not focused on human difference, because here there be dragons. [[User:MPants at work|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MPants at work|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 22:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{xt|'''Sex''' is the [[Phenotypic trait|trait]] that determines whether a [[Sexual reproduction|sexually reproducing]] organism produces [[male]] or [[female]] [[Gamete|gametes]].}} |
|||
:::(I’m currently on mobile phone so I can’t properly place my comments) {{u|MjolnirPants}} with regards to things about evolutionary psychology. There are some reliable sources outside of the field that align with other biology sources. |
|||
:::For example there are many reliable sources that mention females are the more choosy sex across species.(Not all of them argue it’s due to anisogamy tho. And keep in mind in recent years there is controversy over this view.)[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 18:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::Could you explain further? I'm not sure I understand what you mean. [[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MjolnirPants|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 19:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
We could shorten it to say: |
|||
Okay here what’s sources on topic say. |
|||
[[https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/mating-systems-in-sexual-animals-83033427/ this source]] says |
|||
{{font color|green| In most species, females are choosier when picking a mate than males.}} |
|||
{{xt|'''Sex''' is the [[Phenotypic trait|trait]] that determines which type of [[gamete]] is produced by a [[Sexual reproduction|sexually reproducing]] organism.}} |
|||
[[https://books.google.com/books?id=_r4OCAAAQBAJ&pg=RA1-PA444&dq=female+choosy&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjcsY6Pq_rxAhXIFjQIHch0CzM4ChDoATAAegQIAxAD this source]] that females are choosy. |
|||
(The links to [[male]] and [[female]] could go where those words already exist in the third sentence of the first paragraph, i.e., {{xt|"By convention, [[Organism|organisms]] that produce smaller, more mobile gametes ([[spermatozoa]], [[sperm]]) are called ''male..''."}}.) |
|||
So females being the more choosy sex isn’t just a view in evolutionary psychology. |
|||
Like you said earlier there is a “culture war” on the topic of sex and gender. This is why it’s hard to edit on articles relating to this topic.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 23:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
What do you think? Would this be an improvement at all? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Sexing: Ripe for deletion == |
|||
:I personally think the first sentence is fine as it right now.[[User:CycoMa1|CycoMa1]] ([[User talk:CycoMa1|talk]]) 04:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
The section doesn't belong in this article. Incidentally, the section includes a misplaced modifier (i.e. "such as bark lice" mistakenly relates to ''sex'' rather than ''species'') and refers to bark lice ''penises'' (rather than ''aedeaguses'') and ''uteruses'' (rather than ''oviducts''). --[[User:Kent Dominic|Kent Dominic·(talk)]] 14:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:totally agree. Anyway WP:NOTHOWTO [[user:Plantsurfer|<span style="background-color:green;color:cyan">Plant</span><span style="background-color:cyan;color:blue;">surfer</span>]] 17:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
: First reaction: no. Because it leaves open the impression that maybe there are other types; third gender gamete? Turner's gamete? CAIS gamete? Silliness, of course, because, we want to say amongst ourselves, duh, NO; but with all the misinformation and lack of knowledge around the whole topic and the sex/gender confusion lurking around the corner, do we want to open the door even a crack to more confusion? That said, I'm open to your reasoning; why do you think it would be an improvement? [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 22:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Honestly I included it because another editor suggested that it should be included.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 17:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::Agreed with Mathglot. I think the existing sentence is clearer, and from a purely stylistic perspective (which is admittedly pretty subjective) I don't see an advantage in changing it. Also, clarity in facts is more important anyway. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 22:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{yo|WhatamIdoing|Plantdrew}} pinging since you had input on the section's creation. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]]) 19:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think what irritates me about this is that we could also, with equal accuracy, write that "[[Fertility]] is the trait that determines whether a [[sexually reproducing]] organism produces [[male]] or [[female]] [[gametes]]". Pedantically speaking, fertility is about ''whether''; sex is about ''which''. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::If the section gets re-upped by some quirk of consensus, the wording should properly be something like this: |
|||
::::I agree with [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]]; the focus ought to be on what/which, rather than whether. [[User:Terrapinaz|Terrapinaz]] ([[User talk:Terrapinaz|talk]]) 11:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[[Sexing]] is the process of identifying an individual's biological sex.<ref>{{Cite dictionary|title=sexing|encyclopedia=Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus|url=https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/sexing}}</ref> The anatomy of sex organs is an unreliable means to identify an organism’s sex in a few species, such as [[Psocoptera|bark lice]], where females have aedeaguses and males have internal seminal ducts, thus making an organism's gametes or eggs an important sex identifier.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Ryan|first=Michael J.|url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Taste_for_the_Beautiful/uc6MDwAAQBAJ?hl=en|title=A Taste for the Beautiful: The Evolution of Attraction|date=2019-06-25|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=978-0-691-19139-3|pages=10|language=en|author-link=Michael J Ryan (biologist)}}</ref> |
|||
::--[[User:Kent Dominic|Kent Dominic·(talk)]] 23:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::@[[User:Kent Dominic|Kent Dominic]], I agree that this section needs a lot of work. I'd be very happy to have your suggested changes appear in the article. |
|||
:::I think the overall education goal is to explain, now that the readers know that the (biological) definition of "male" is "whichever one produces the smaller gametes", that there are various ways of determining whether an individual is the sort that will produce the bigger or smaller gametes. We should probably [[Wikipedia:Build the web]] to articles like [[Chick sexing]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 07:04, 10 July 2024
This level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |
RFC: Definition of Sex
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Several editors suggested that the content of the article reflects this usage, though some pointed out that this article gets into multifactoral discussion. Overall this line of discussion, centered around MOS:LEAD, suggests that despite some coverage of other topics, this article's focus is around the reproductive definition
There was discussion about what reliable sources say; editors note that many sources that suggest a multifactoral definition do exist, however multiple editors believe that those sources were largely focused around topics other than the one covered by this article, especially with a focus on humans. Overall, this discussion—implicitly focused around the WP:RS guideline, and related policies like WP:NPOV, WP:V and so on—suggests that the latter evaluation has broader support.
Some editors of various opinions relied on their personal opinions or expertise on what the meaning of the word was. Given the amount discussion centered around PAG (including use of reliable sources), I've weighed such opinions or personal expertise appropriately.
There was concern about canvassing, evaluating the concerns including checking the edit history of many individual editors it seems likely that canvassing did in small part affect the discussion. This does not mean we can't, with care, find a rough consensus in the discussion. However, note that the in-depth of this discussion is far less "one-sided" than a raw !vote tally would suggest. On the other hand, please don't take the wrong message from this: canvassing concerns were not one-sided. I evaluated both explicit and implicit concerns neutrally, not taking any at face value.
There are some more notes from the discussion:
- Some editors desire to further disambiguate within the hatnote of this article, the primary suggestion being to link gender, though there were other suggestions.
- Some editors suggested to change this into a disambiguation page. There are suggestions that the article title itself is a source of disagreement, and that turning the page into a disambiguation page would make it easier for readers to find what they are looking for. Some editors suggested the current article is a primary topic for the article title, while others disagreed.
- There were also suggestions to turn this into a broad concept article.
Despite the amount of discussion, none of these points were supported or rejected sufficiently to suggest any further consensus. (non-admin closure) —siroχo 10:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Should this article use a multifactoral definition of sex, such as:
Sex is a biological construct based on traits including external genitalia, secondary sex characteristics, gonads, chromosomes, and hormones.
or a reproductive definition of sex, such as:
Sex is the trait that determines whether a sexually reproducing organism produces male or female gametes.
or both? Loki (talk) 07:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC) ("Both" added by Loki (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC))
Survey
- Multifactoral. See the Discussion section for more detail, but in brief, the recent sourcing for that definition is extremely strong, while we don't appear to have much sourcing at all for the older reproductive definition. Loki (talk) 07:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- Both. It's clear from the discussion below that there are sources supporting each one. When reliable sources are not fully in consensus, we just present what they have to say, and note the differences. We do not ever choose a side. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- (Having seen the discussion below, I am also fine with the disambiguation solution, and indeed that may be the best for it.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- Reproductive, because the "multifactorial" one is over at Sexual dimorphism. This is really the wrong question, and I think the problem is the WP:Article title. So, once again, from the top:
- The way that you figure out what the article about is...you figure out what the article is about. Naming it comes afterwards. You can't figure out what the WP:COMMONNAME for _____ is unless and until you know what _____ is. The relationship between Wikipedia:Article titles and scopes puts the scope first. For example, the _____ of Queen Elizabeth II is "that nice old lady who was queen", not "anything and everything that gets called 'Queen Elizabeth II'. In this case, the _____ of this article is "the academic convention by which those seahorses which bear young internally are called males, even though it's weird to think of males being 'pregnant'". (And why are they called males? Because every good biologist knows that the definition of male is "whichever ones have the smaller and more mobile gametes" – full stop. There is no "unless they're pregnant" or "except when they're shorter" or "if their internal genitalia look like this" – there are no exceptions to this rule.)
- But with a few articles – I give Sex and Ketogenic diet as examples — we have a perfectly decent, well-understood _____, and some editor turns up and says "Oh, Title isn't about _____; Title is about <other thing>." That's what's happening here. As evidenced by the long conversations above, the OP's concern isn't whether there should be an article about dividing whole species into male and female; the OP's goal is to have the article at this particular title be about assigning individuals to the male half or the female half, with a particular emphasis on phenotypic variations in that process.
- I think that the only way to stop this kind of demand (to put it bluntly, that the article at the title Sex be arranged in ways that support personal beliefs that a large fraction of humans should consider themselves biologically intersex) is either to have the trans-related culture wars end in the real world, or to turn Sex into a disambiguation page. Only one of those is within our control. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not against turning Sex into a disambiguation page but the way this discussion has been going so far, that will just push the argument back one step. The reproductive definition should be on a page titled reproductive sex, as it's only one of many such definitions, and the page for biological sex in general (because we still have to have one of those) should use the multifactoral definition below. Loki (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- The definition of sex used by biologists for centuries could be considered biological sex, but if you want to complain about how your POV is the One True™ POV for Biological sex, then that can redirect to the dab page, too.
- Your multifactorial definition could be at Phenotypic sex, if you can articulate a clear distinction between that and Sexual dimorphism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- We don't go by the definition used "for centuries", we go with the most up-to-date definition in the sources. Otherwise we'd define heat as phlogiston. Loki (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not against turning Sex into a disambiguation page but the way this discussion has been going so far, that will just push the argument back one step. The reproductive definition should be on a page titled reproductive sex, as it's only one of many such definitions, and the page for biological sex in general (because we still have to have one of those) should use the multifactoral definition below. Loki (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- Reproductive and Disambiguate. I'm not sure what title the topic of this article (the collective term for the two kinds of anisogamous sexually reproducing organisms) should have, but the title sex has many incoming links that intend sexual intercourse or human sexual activity. Outside of template (navbox) links, I'd estimate that most of the incoming links need disambiguation. Sources for a multifactoral definition are heavily anthropocentric. Sex is more complicated than XX/XY, but sources from biomedical/social (human/mammal) sources focus on stuff like SRY that upend XX/XY. Sources from biologists who aren't focused on mammals will focus on stuff like ZW sex-determination system that also upend XX/XY. Plantdrew (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- There might be a place for a multifactoral definition in a different article and the most appropriate disambiguatory term used for this article would be affected if there is an article on a multifactoral definition. Plantdrew (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. I think you have to get past the politics of this. This is for one several topics in one so that would lean me to Dissambiguate. Having worked in this area, indirectly my Post Grad superviser researched Temperature Dependant Sex Determination etc, I am most familiar with this as a Biologist. First up this is not an encyclopedia of mammals so sticking to xx/xy is so outdated and nonencompassing of what is out there its bordering on a political argument more than a biological one. As some noted birds and reptiles use different systems. In reality intersex is a biological definition of indivisuals that have traits or abilities of both sexes, note some species can change sex under certain circumstances, eg Clown Fish. There are cases where under varying circumstances species can have the chromosomes of one sex but exhibit another, my old boss got a paper in Nature over that. He found completely reproductive females that had the chromosomes of a male, and vice versa. The whole issue of sex in anaimals is directly tied to gene mixing and survival, so yes there are safeguards in the system. Snails are hemophradytes totally functional, some species have parthenogenesis. Make an article about biological sex and another about sexuality in humans. Both are important and both should be done with respect. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 10:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- Reproductive The sources presented for multifactorial are not as authoritative or as strong as presented and contradictory (and highly critical) contemporary sources have been ignored. This is ill-conceived and fundamentally confuses anthropocentric heuristics for identifying sex in an individual, with sex. Void if removed (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- Both - It's clear from the sources below, particularly those identified by Loki, that the definition of sex is multifactorial, and that defining it based on the types of gametes an organism produces is one of those factors. That it is politically controversial to recognise sex as multifactorial in some parts of the world is not a reason for our content to not match with reliable sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Sideswipe9th, the seahorses that carry their young internally are male. The seahorses that don't are female. Please name all the "factors" that went into the decision to label these two groups "male and female" rather than "female and male". If it's truly multi-factorial, you should have no trouble at all coming up with at least two factors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: I'm not a marine biologist (how often do you get to say that on enwiki?), and my knowledge of seahorses ends just slightly after the point at which the Science journal defines them as weird and there's a lot about them we don't know. There's also two answers depending on whether you're asking this question from a historical or contemporary perspective.
- For a contemporary perspective, in addition to the obvious factor of gametes, and the presence or absence of a brood pouch (both directly observable sex characteristics), at least one of the other factors seems to be genomic, if I'm understanding that paper correctly. The presence of one or more patristacin gene variants seems to be a necessary determinant, as it is expressed highly within the brood pouch. As for why male seahorses have a brood pouch, that is something I don't know, and I'm not sure is known.
- If however you're asking me historically how seahorse sex was determined, it seems to have been through observation of the brood pouch. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- How did marine biologists decide that the ones with a brood pouch (or other traits) should be called the male ones? Why didn't they decide that the ones with the brood pouch were female? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ultimately, it doesn't matter to us how they decided that. It only matters what they've decided, and you can see below that especially recent sources are increasingly using a multifactoral definition of sex, even in non-human animals. Loki (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ultimately, how they decided that is the subject of this article, no matter what this article is called. I think that matters very much for our current purposes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- No, what they decided is the subject of the article. How and why they decided that is scientific research, and if we want to repeat that research on this talk page ourselves that's called original research. Loki (talk) 05:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ultimately, how they decided that is the subject of this article, no matter what this article is called. I think that matters very much for our current purposes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know, as I said I'm not a marine biologist. The real question is, how are they determined now? Definitions change over time, they can be replaced or added to. So how are scientists in the here and now determining the sex of seahorses?
- A paper published in Aquaculture in September 2023 mentions that the presence of a
brood pouch and gonadal morphology
is one way to determine the sex phenotype of Hippocampus erectus, while also stating that the presence or absence of LRRIQ1 and IL34 genes can be also be used for sexual determination. Likewise the paper in Nature that I linked in my previous reply also used a genomic basis for sex determination, albeit with a different gene. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)- Sure, but that's to determine whether the sex phenotype of the individual you're looking at aligns more closely with the group conventionally called 'male' or with the group conventionally called 'female'.
- The rule's the same for every single animal on Earth, so you don't actually need to be a marine biologist. Or, you know, read this article. The answer is in the very first sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ultimately, it doesn't matter to us how they decided that. It only matters what they've decided, and you can see below that especially recent sources are increasingly using a multifactoral definition of sex, even in non-human animals. Loki (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- How did marine biologists decide that the ones with a brood pouch (or other traits) should be called the male ones? Why didn't they decide that the ones with the brood pouch were female? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Sideswipe9th, the seahorses that carry their young internally are male. The seahorses that don't are female. Please name all the "factors" that went into the decision to label these two groups "male and female" rather than "female and male". If it's truly multi-factorial, you should have no trouble at all coming up with at least two factors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- Reproductive, there is already an entire separate entry covering gender and there are important distinctions we should not blur. Science Direct a respected digital publisher notes several of the differences between sex and gender clearly in articles like https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/gender-and-sex with many reasons for maintaining the biological (reproductive) definition of sex in medicine separately from gender. Watering it down to include / be based upon secondary sex characteristics & hormones which can be altered with drugs would effectively eliminate its usefulness. Protection of sex (reproductive) on the basis of best medical care & research should alone should be enough to conclude this debate. I additionally note the debate reaching seahorses on more than one occasion. This is surely a dead end and clearly not one where a new consensus will be won. Furthermore if new viewpoint is lost and sex was changed to multifactoral the page would be less clear to readers, and lead to further endless edit battles over the primacy of the different elements within the proposed list, rather than settling the issue. scolly69 (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Alligator24 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
- I note that the very first source from your link is this, which defines sex as
“Sex” refers to biological differences between female, male and intersex subjects—human, animal or even at the cellular level. Sex is generally operationalized through what can be summarized as the 3 “Gs,” i.e., genes, gonads and genitalia (Blackless et al., 2000). Practically, this means that sex can be defined by three means...
- This clearly looks like a multifactoral definition of sex to me. In fact, just skimming down the list, of the sources that define "sex" in their abstract there appear to be two sources that define sex multifactorally, one that defines it chromosomally, and zero that define it reproductively. Loki (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- "Operationalized through" means "identified in individuals via". It means "not the actual definition". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Did you miss the
this means that sex can be defined by three means
at the end? Loki (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)- Yes, and having read it in context, I realized that the authors were thinking of individual sex determination and not a dictionary definition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Did you miss the
- "Operationalized through" means "identified in individuals via". It means "not the actual definition". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- I note that the very first source from your link is this, which defines sex as
- Multifactoral It's pretty apparent just by reading the rest of this article that it's about more than just the reproductive aspects of sex, but also about the other factors in other sections, which then have main page links to all the various sub-pages. This article is the top level one giving the overview leading to all of that. We have the sexual reproduction page for a reason, not to mention reproduction and human reproduction. It seems bizarre to have this article try to be just a copy of information in that singular aspect. SilverserenC 23:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- Reproductive. Sex would cease to have a useful meaning for the vast majority of sexual species if the so-called "multifactoral" definition of sex were to be adopted - which is exactly why this hasn't happened in academic science departments. What, exactly, would be the relevance of external genitalia to an asparagus? Or of gonads? Or of hormones? This whole discussion is frankly an exercise by anthropocentric ideologies from academic humanities to force scientific understandings to conform to contemporary trends, and it should be resisted. Fig (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Reproductive - If the definition were changed, sex would no longer be differentiated from other terms, such as gender, that exist to cover the multifactoral concepts. —Torchiest talkedits 00:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Reproductive Certainly there is a place for the multifactoral definition (perhaps in Human sexuality), but this article is definitely not the place. Kcmastrpc (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Reproductive. This is a general encyclopaedia article about biology that covers all sexually reproducing species. It is emphatically not an essay about gender (has its own page), human sexuality (has its own page) or any other human-related and in many cases behaviourally oriented topic such as practical treatment of patients based on their sex (or gender). It is always possibly to include short references and links to other articles where appropriate - this should be amply enough to address any issues behind the proposal. Stca74 (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Reproductive. This question seems to attempt to elevate a modern socio-political-cultural issue above a fundamental natural concept, implying the former is of much greater broad importance and more deserving of focus than the latter. I must emphasize emphatically that this is not true and is not the way a general encyclopedia for people across the world should handle such topics. Kajitani-Eizan (talk) 09:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Kajitani-Eizan (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
- Reproductive. The section on humans can feature the other sort of definition. The only reason that lay sources on sex feature the ‘multifactoral’ definition is because laypeople are more liable to be interested in human sex. More scientific sources, about the vast breadth of the phenomenon, are clear that it’s about reproduction. Zanahary (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Disambiguate. There are different topics under or related to sex. They should go into different articles if they do not already. Senorangel (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- None of these. Recast as WP:Broad-concept article instead. Seems to me WP:BCA was invented for something like this. Literally will keep all y'all happy. Mathglot (talk) 06:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Reproductive, the clear and unambiguous definition of sex is the reason we can even talk about things such as Sexual dimorphism, Sequential hermaphroditism, or Simultaneous hermaphroditism High Tinker (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that High Tinker (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
- Reproductive, as this is what the WP:WEIGHT of sources do that cover the tree of life broadly, as shown below in the Discussion section (and many more could be added). Almost all if not all of the sources alleged to support a "multifactorial" definition are anthropocentric; they are specifically about humans and about how to classify the sex of individual humans, which in a small minority of cases is indeed ambiguous and involves a mix of traits from both sexes. In a medical context, that can be relevant. But this article is not about humans except to briefly contextualize them among their closer and further relatives on the tree of life; to give any significant weight to definitions built around them is backwards and a misapplication of the sources.There is no need to disambiguate this page; this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the hatnote and its link to Sex (disambiguation) serves that purpose perfectly well and with due weight. Crossroads -talk- 01:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- P.S.: Regarding the example sentences used in the OP, there are far more sources that refer to sex as a "trait" rather than as a "construct". Sex is a phenotypic trait, not a mere "construct" (whatever that is supposed to mean). Crossroads -talk- 20:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- Presumably a Social construct is intended, since the meaning of all words is a social construct. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- I suspected as much, but of course this would then apply to literally every topic in Wikipedia and to every scientific term. Yet, one never sees a push to label things like anthropogenic climate change, evolution, Covid-19, or the shape of the Earth as social constructs. Most if not all arguments used to claim sex is a social construct apply to many other things as well, yet it is easy to see how in such cases it obscures more than it clarifies or even implies that there is no objective basis to believe the phenomenon exists. Crossroads -talk- 18:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- Climate change could be described as a phenomenon; perhaps that word would work here, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- I suspected as much, but of course this would then apply to literally every topic in Wikipedia and to every scientific term. Yet, one never sees a push to label things like anthropogenic climate change, evolution, Covid-19, or the shape of the Earth as social constructs. Most if not all arguments used to claim sex is a social construct apply to many other things as well, yet it is easy to see how in such cases it obscures more than it clarifies or even implies that there is no objective basis to believe the phenomenon exists. Crossroads -talk- 18:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- Presumably a Social construct is intended, since the meaning of all words is a social construct. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- P.S.: Regarding the example sentences used in the OP, there are far more sources that refer to sex as a "trait" rather than as a "construct". Sex is a phenotypic trait, not a mere "construct" (whatever that is supposed to mean). Crossroads -talk- 20:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- Reproductive. Was leaning both, but it's clear the article is about biology and the sex of organisms. The article is not limited to humans. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- Reproductive - As stated at the top of the article, "This article is about the distinguishing trait in sexually reproducing organisms." PhenomenonDawn (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that PhenomenonDawn (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
- Reproductive. This is the first I've come across the "multifactorial" definition. I suppose one can fall back on the other factors to identify an individual's sex in totally sterile animals if gametes aren't available...although I'd say the equipment existing to produce certain gametes still falls under the "reproductive" definition even if the cells aren't ever produced. JoelleJay (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Both and recast article as WP:Broad-concept article, cf. discussion of Mathglot. I would be open to some form of disambiguation. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Reproductive - per WP:LEAD as it is a summary of the article content and the wording used. The content here is not talking about biological "construct", maybe that is for a different article in the theme? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Both and Disambiguate. I am voting for this variant because clearly sex is not just about producing of gametes (reproductive cells). From my perspective as a person with education in biology (molecular genetics) it is much more complex. Sex is basically reproductive strategy of an organism. However this strategy is fulfilled not just by gametes but also by secondary sex characteristics of phenotype which serve as a major aspect of gamete production and distribution (gonads, ductal system and genitalia-in mammals) and secondary sex characteristics (visible aspects of phenotype besides primary sex characteristics, mostly formed during maturation of an organism) which support mating strategy of an organism. Without secondary sex characteristics sexually reproducing organism couldn't achieve successful mating and wouldn't in fact reproduce. Secondary sex characteristics are induced by interplay of genotype and sex hormones in mammals (regulation of gene transcription). All these aspects are inseparable parts of a concept which we can describe as "sex". Thus I strongly recommend complex description, gamete production is reductive and doesn't fully describe sex as a reproductive strategy. Multifactoral definition with addition of gonads and produced type of gamete provides complete description. Which means sex is both "Multifactoral" and "Reproductive". There is another problem with "Reproductive" gamete definition. When we want to create classification system which would be able to classify sex of an organism you cannot use solely gamete based definition because it would fail to classify organism which doesn't produce any gametes for whatever reason, be it induced condition or congenital condition. In such cases we need to fallback to definition based on phenotype of an organism and that is described by "Multifactoral" definition rather than just "Reproductive" gamete based.Beczky 23:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Beczky (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
- The multi-factorial approach fails for example here with these lizards. There are three widely divergent types of males, each with very different behaviours and morphologies, the consistent way that we can tell they are all males is because of the gamete they produce. High Tinker (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- All of the aspects you mention are still solidly in the "reproductive" definition, not "multifactorial", as they are all ultimately predicated on the gametes a type of organism produces. From the perspective of biology it doesn't matter if one species has secondary sex characteristics resembling those of males in other species; if it produces ova it is still female (or hermaphroditic if it also produces sperm). It's the gamete production that is necessary and sufficient to identify sex in a species; secondary sex characteristics may generally be necessary, but they are not sufficient.An organism that doesn't produce any gametes does not sexually reproduce, so there is no conflict with the "reproductive" gamete definition. What you seem to be talking about, though, is how to classify sex in an individual organism rather than in a whole species or clade--but that is not what this page is about. JoelleJay (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- This is a general definition of sex. Problem I see is determination of sex of an individual organism. I see a conflict here. If we accept only gamete based definition then it means some organisms would be classified as sexless. Is it acceptable or not? Beczky (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Why would an article on sex be of any concern to organisms which are sexless? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but where is the conflict or problem in that instance? Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Of course it's acceptable; all prokaryotes are sexless.
- Wikipedia needs two articles:
- An article about sex determination for an individual organism ("Given that males generally have these characteristics, and females generally have those characteristics, which is this particular individual?")
- A separate article about which group gets labeled male or female ("We have two groups; which group gets labeled as male and which group gets labeled as female? We can't figure out which characteristics males and females 'generally have', if we can't figure out which group gets which label.")
- The subject of this particular article is the second one. The articles about the first probably need work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Why does Wikipedia need those two articles? Do the sources make this distinction? Because it looks to me like they don't. Loki (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Medical sources certainly do. For that tiny minority of ambiguous intersex babies, there's nothing whatsoever in a medical textbook about the convention that sperm producers are called male. It's all about assigning an individual to a pre-divided group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Why do you think that? Because all I see is "sex is...". I think that you're assigning this intent to the sources after the fact. Loki (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Do you see any medical textbooks explaining why males are called males and not called females? I haven't (and after 16+ years with WikiProject Medicine, I have seen a lot of medical textbooks). Therefore, medical textbooks do not explain the convention that sperm producers are called male. Please feel free to provide a counterexample, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Have you seen any medical textbooks explaining why dogs are called dogs and not oompa-loompas?
- Does the lack of such an explanation mean that when a textbook tells you what a dog is, you say "but since it's not explaining why this species is called dogs instead of something else, it's not a definition of 'dog'"? Loki (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Here's one. How many do you need? Mathglot (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- For a moment there I was very confused. Loki (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- There are sources explaining why certain canids are called dogs and not called gray wolves, or, more generally, why other closely related species are conventionally given different names. Because of the Species complex problem, sources like this are fairly common. Every animal with a Valid name (zoology) has a definition that tells you how to differentiate this particular species from some other, similar species. There are variations in individuals that might make them difficult to classify at a glance (e.g., an albino ball python won't have the characteristic coloring of its species, but it's still part of its species), but there's still a general definition.
- It's the same thing with males and females: we have a human-imposed conventional nomenclature that says sperm=male and egg=female. There are variations in individuals that might make them difficult to classify at a glance (e.g., intersex animals), but there's still a general definition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- The definition on dog is
The dog (Canis familiaris or Canis lupus familiaris) is a domesticated descendant of the wolf.
This isn't even sufficient to distinguish one individual organism from another, let alone explain why this particular species is called "dog". - And this pattern is true for most Wikipedia articles. So for instance, the definition of a chair is
A chair is a type of seat, typically designed for one person and consisting of one or more legs, a flat or slightly angled seat and a back-rest.
which is (mostly) sufficient for distinguishing between individual objects, but cannot explain why the class of objects called "chairs" are called that. Loki (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)- WhatamIdoing is talking about
Linnaeus considered the dog to be a separate species from the wolf because of its upturning tail (cauda recurvata), which is not found in any other canid
. Most Wikipedia articles on species don't include information differentiating the species from it's close relatives (because most articles on species are 1-2 sentence stubs), and I think it's safe to say that none of the Wikipedia articles that do include the differences from close relatives have that information in the first sentence. But every species has a publication somewhere out there that does give the differences from close relatives. I'm not sure how dogs are particularly relevant though. - Chair seems more relevant. Chairs (presumably) have been independently invented multiple times. Anisogamy (production of sperm/eggs) has evolved independently multiple times. Gonochory (separate individuals producing sperm/eggs) has evolved independently multiple times. Convergent evolution has produced different things that humans use the same label for in spite of their independent evolution. We use the word wing to refer to independently evolved appendages in birds, bats, insects and pterosaurs (the wing article is awfully anthropcentric, focusing mainly on wings constructed by humans). Plantdrew (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing is talking about
- WhatamIdoing wrote - Every animal with a Valid name (zoology) has a definition that tells you how to differentiate this particular species from some other, similar species. This is not entirely the right way to look at this. Your mixing taxonomy and nomenclature. A name has a diagnosis which purports to differentiate the taxon. It does not have to actually work. A species in a taxonomic assessment will have a set of characters that diagnose the species from other related forms, no matter what name is applied to it, if any. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- Having a valid name is how you know that it's been accepted as a separate species in the taxonomy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- remember though that the difference between availability and validity (zoology) is a taxonomic assessment. So that is true but there are plenty of taxa recognised without a valid name, plenty with a valid name that cannot be distinguished, and also plenty where there are options depending on where you look. Birdlife Int Checklist has 20% more species in it than IOC, which is correct? Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- I feel completely confident in saying that neither is entirely correct. Both contain errors and out of date entries. If you meant "Whose inclusion guidelines do you feel are more compelling?", I'd say that Wikipedia:I am not a reliable source, so Wikipedia doesn't really care which one I prefer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- remember though that the difference between availability and validity (zoology) is a taxonomic assessment. So that is true but there are plenty of taxa recognised without a valid name, plenty with a valid name that cannot be distinguished, and also plenty where there are options depending on where you look. Birdlife Int Checklist has 20% more species in it than IOC, which is correct? Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- Having a valid name is how you know that it's been accepted as a separate species in the taxonomy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- The definition on dog is
- Here's one. How many do you need? Mathglot (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Do you see any medical textbooks explaining why males are called males and not called females? I haven't (and after 16+ years with WikiProject Medicine, I have seen a lot of medical textbooks). Therefore, medical textbooks do not explain the convention that sperm producers are called male. Please feel free to provide a counterexample, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Why do you think that? Because all I see is "sex is...". I think that you're assigning this intent to the sources after the fact. Loki (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Medical sources certainly do. For that tiny minority of ambiguous intersex babies, there's nothing whatsoever in a medical textbook about the convention that sperm producers are called male. It's all about assigning an individual to a pre-divided group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Why does Wikipedia need those two articles? Do the sources make this distinction? Because it looks to me like they don't. Loki (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- This is a general definition of sex. Problem I see is determination of sex of an individual organism. I see a conflict here. If we accept only gamete based definition then it means some organisms would be classified as sexless. Is it acceptable or not? Beczky (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Reproductive. As many editors have already pointed out, this article is about the biological notion of sex, "the distinguishing trait in sexually reproducing organisms", not about human sexuality and gender, which already have their own self-standing articles. It's perfectly clear, the hatnote template:About does its job here, and I don't see the need to disambiguate further. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Reproductive Agree that this article is clearly about the biological aspects and we have other articles that cover other aspects. I don't see the need for the change here. Springee (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- Multifactoral/both; this is self-evident and not up for debate, given how this topic is covered in reliable sources and even in the article. Per Silverseren (
"It's pretty apparent just by reading the rest of this article that it's about more than just the reproductive aspects of sex, but also about the other factors in other sections, which then have main page links to all the various sub-pages."
) I also note that there have been organized attempts at WP:CANVASSING by anti-trans activists on social media, including a Tweet that has been retweeted over 700 times by anti-trans Twitter accounts specifically linking to this talk page. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)- We're aware of the canvassing, that's why there's that big notice at the top. Loki (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Reproductive -
Almost all if not all of the sources alleged to support a "multifactorial" definition are anthropocentric; they are specifically about humans and about how to classify the sex of individual humans
this article is clearly much wider than that and about a basic biological distinction across most of the animal and plant world. Pincrete (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC) - Reproductive: From my reading of the multifactoral sources below, they seem to exclusively talk about humans and sometimes animals. As this page also includes plants, it should include a generalized definition, which reproductive works as. The multifactoral aspect can be added to human-specific articles. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- Reproductive and Disamb to Gender for the multifactoral which is only completely valid for organisms that have external genitals and sexual dimorphism. Why complicate this and confuse the reader? How does that improve the encyclopaedia? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
- The following 14 sources, including several WP:MEDORG sources support the multifactoral definition:
Multifactoral sources
|
---|
|
- Furthermore, this piece by the Yale School of Medicine refers to a 2001 definition by the Institute of Medicine (now the National Academies of Medicine) as
but also explicitly argues that this definition is outdated and should be updated.a classification, generally as male or female, according to the reproductive organs and functions that derive from the chromosomal complement [generally XX for female and XY for male].
- The following 4 sources that have been offered by opponents in previous discussions support the reproductive definition:
Reproductive sources
|
---|
|
- Although Vegetal Sex by Stella Sandford has been offered by opponents as a book that defines sex as based on gametes, it in fact puts up such a definition to be refuted and goes on to spend the rest of the chapter rejecting the idea that sex is a meaningful concept in plants at all.
- Overall I find the sourcing here pretty overwhelming that sex is defined in a multifactoral way, and think it's impossible to say with these sources that we should continue to define sex in a purely reproductive way: either it should be defined only multifactorally or both definitions should be represented. Loki (talk) 07:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- Why not mention both? It really depends in what context and what field. Biologists tend to look to define sex by the gametes that reproductive organs produce. I have no issue with the multifactorial definition being presented either. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Zenomonoz, "mentioning" both might be appropriate, but the request here is really to change the main subject of this article (from "how to divide a whole species into male and female" to "there's so much variation in human phenotypes").
- "Mentioning" the latter, in the form of a "not to be confused with" statement, would be perfectly appropriate. Our goal, after all, is to get readers to the subject they care about. Some will want to read about why those wacky biologists decided that the seahorses that get pregnant should be called male, when every Kindergartner knows that it's the mommies who get pregnant; others will want to read about – and should be sent promptly off to the existing article about – the vast and vibrant variability in individual phenotypes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not totally against mentioning both, but my reason for preferring multifactoral only is that first of all I think the weight of the sources are strongly on the side of the multifactoral definition to the point where we don't need to give significant weight to other definitions, and second of all I think trying to phrase that properly would be awkward. Loki (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- It clearly depends on the field. In biology, it's clearly possible and normal to define sex – in that context – based on gametes. See for example the multitude of terms used in botany at Plant reproductive morphology#Terminology. In the context of human society, other definitions may be used. Our task is to follow reliable sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- In short, it is proposed to define sex as sex phenotype, but they are not the same. I've already specified one reliable source that explains the difference, here's another one for the definition:
D6194c-1cc (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Standard definitions of sexes in biology are based on the difference between sex cells (gametes, i.e., the egg and the sperm) and proceed as follows:
Male 1. Denoting the gamete (sex cell) that, during sexual reproduction, fuses with a female gamete in the process of fertilization. Male gametes are generally smaller than the female gametes and are usually motile 2. (Denoting) an individual whose reproductive organs produce only male gametes. (Hine Reference Hine 2019)
Female 1. Denoting the gamete (sex cell) that, during sexual reproduction, fuses with a male gamete in the process of fertilization. Female gametes are generally larger than the male gametes and are usually immotile 2. (Denoting) an individual organism whose reproductive organs produce only female gametes. (Hine Reference Hine 2019)
— Evron, Aya (2023-06-13). "What Do Sexes Have to Do with (Models of) Sexual Selection?". Philosophy of Science: 1–19. doi:10.1017/psa.2023.86. ISSN 0031-8248.- Gamete size and motility are phenotypes, so the debate about whether to use the gamete definition and multi-factorial definition is not a question about whether to "define sex as sex phenotype," but a question of which phenotypes to use in the definition. And the heart of the question before the Wikipedia editors is whether the biologists have a consensus on which phenotypes to use and how to combine them to determine sex. BrotherE (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- Many of the sources for the multidimensional definition seem to be about the definition of sex in humans, which is both biological and cultural/social. This page is not primarily focused on humans and does not address cultural dimensions of sex. Perhaps we should consider adding a link to Human Sexuality in the preamble?
- A nit on wording: is it correct to say that sex is "the trait that determines" gametes, rather than the trait of having such-and-such gametes? The former makes it seem like sex precedes gametes, but the rest of the article has it the other way around.
- Carleas (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
- Yes, @Carleas, you're right. That's been discussed above, at length. These are very human-centric sources, and they're really talking about sex phenotype rather than sex per se. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- Many, but not all. Several of the multifactoral sources explicitly mention non-human animals. Loki (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- Many of the sources for a multifactoral definition seem weak, circular, or overtly ideological, or the quoting does not reveal the full picture. For example, this cited Stanford website is claimed as multi-factoral, but actually states:
the egg-sperm distinction is the basis for distinguishing between females and males.
- Very few sources have been included presenting the opposing, overwhelmingly well-established picture, grounded in evolutionary biology, but they are easy to find. For example this (2014) on the evolutionary benefit of two sexes, which has evolved independently multiple times throughout history:
Biologically, males are defined as the sex that produces the smaller gametes (e.g. sperm), implying that the male and female sexes only exist in species with gamete dimorphism (anisogamy). Our ancestors were isogamous, meaning that only one gamete size was produced. The question of the evolutionary origin of males and females is then synonymous to asking what evolutionary pressures caused gamete sizes to diverge.
- Or this one (2022), which explicitly rejects the multi-factoral approach as confusing "sex" with "sex differentiation", and clearly defines sex itself thus:
Biological sex is defined as a binary variable in every sexually reproducing plant and animal species. With a few exceptions, all sexually reproducing organisms generate exactly two types of gametes that are distinguished by their difference in size: females, by definition, produce large gametes (eggs) and males, by definition, produce small and usually motile gametes (sperm).[9-12]
- Void if removed (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- From Chapter 2 of Sex and Gender: A Contemporary Reader:
- On defining sex:
The aim of this chapter is to review the biological understanding of the phenomenon that is sex. In the first section, we ask the question: Why does sex exist? We explain its evolutionary origins and the binary gamete system on which sex— 'female' and `male'—is founded. We explore some of the diversity of sex in the natural world yet understand how reproductive bodies are organised around two functional reproductive roles.
- [...]
From an evolutionary perspective, we have established what sex is (reproductive role by reference to gamete type) and that, despite the fascinating manifestations of the two sexes within individuals and within populations, there are only two sexes.
- On whether there is a "new consensus" on the meaning of sex:
we challenge the premise that some new scientific consensus on sex has emerged. Writing for DW, Sterzik (2021) claims that the broad scientific consensus now looks different: sex is a spectrum'. The definitions and understandings of sex we present in this chapter are uncontroversial, appearing in dictionaries, key biology textbooks and medical consensus statements like that issued by the Endocrine Society (Barghava et al. 2021). There is a vast literature which depends, explicitly or implicitly, on these understandings of sex. Searches on the scientific publication database PubMed for 'male' [AND] 'sperm' or 'female' [AND] 'egg' retrieve around 100,000 results each, including numerous and recent publications from Nobel laureates in physiology and medicine and a huge array of biological and medical disciplines. Searches of the PubMed database (performed on 9 July 2022) for phrases like 'bimodal sex', 'spectrum of sex' or 'sex is a social construct' generate no results in the biological or medical literature, although two close matches for 'sex is a spectrum' are found. The first is a study of how sex (female or male) affects the spectrum of genetic variations acquired in the X chromosome over a lifespan (Agarwal and Przeworski 2019). The second is a study of how foetal sex (female or male) affects the spectrum of placental conditions experienced during pregnancy (Murji et al 2012). Neither study demonstrates any confusion about the nature of sex, and both exemplify the importance of understanding sex in a clinical setting. It seems that claims of a new scientific consensus—or the milder assertion of an academic debate — regarding sex are overblown and manufactured by public commentators to generate an appeal to authority.
- On the fundamental error of redefining sex as a set of traits:
Void if removed (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)A related argument evokes sex characteristics that can overlap between the sexes to attempt to demonstrate that 'there is no one parameter that makes a person biologically male or female' (Elsesser 2020). It is true that many females are taller than many males, and that some males have low levels of testosterone more typical of females. However, such arguments fail to acknowledge a point we have already addressed: we only know that males are typically taller and have higher testosterone levels than females if we have a reference characteristic for sex, independent of height and testosterone level, by which to divide and measure people. And it is centuries of study of the anatomic and molecular organisation of the human species around sex as a biological function that serves as the anchor point. Put simply, it would be impossible to claim that low and high testosterone levels are correlated with being female and male, respectively, unless the categories female and male already had established meanings that testosterone levels were being correlated with. The same holds for every other sex correlate.
- First of all, you are extremely cherrypicking the Stanford definition. The full quote you're cherrypicking from is:
Sex may be defined according to: 1. Genetic sex determination: chromosomal make-up, generally XX/XY for most mammals. The presence of sex-determining genes means that every nucleated human cell has a sex. 2. Gametes: germ cells. In species that produce two morphologically distinct types of gametes, the egg-sperm distinction is the basis for distinguishing between females and males. 3. Morphology: physical traits that differentiate female and male...
- Or in other words, they are giving three different definitions of sex as part of a broader point that there is no single definition of sex.
- Your next two sources I admit are valid, but they're only two WP:PRIMARY papers. And one explicitly says that it's arguing against a growing new consensus.
- Sex & Gender: A Contemporary Reader appears to be a collection of sociology essays and so its relevance to an article on biology seems shaky. I'm also suspicious that two of the essays are from Kathleen Stock and Lisa Littman, who, just look at their pages for why I suspect both of them may have strongly biased views on this topic to say the least. Loki (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
The full quote you're cherrypicking from is:
- I'm pointing out this is contradictory, and omitting that this source very clearly states gametes are the whole basis of male and female overrides the rest, which is about sex determination, not what sex is.
a growing new consensus
- It says "increasing". It does not say a consensus, and certainly not a biological consensus which it specifically refutes thus:
it is consensus among biologists that the majority of sexually reproducing multicellular organisms have exactly two evolutionary strategies to generate offspring, a female one and a male one
- And it notes that these increasing moves are not about biology, but about creating an "inclusive environment for gender-diverse people". More on this below.
Sex & Gender: A Contemporary Reader appears to be a collection of sociology essays
- It is an expansive book covering eg. sociology, philosophy, biology and law, with subject-matter chapters written by different authors. Ad hominem attacks on the authors of other chapters have no bearing on the present citations from chapter 2, which was written by a developmental biologist and heavily cites and assesses the primary literature. Basically, this is a recent, high quality WP:RS that has already performed a literature review as to whether there is a "new consensus" on sex, and come to the conclusion again that no, there is not.
- Meanwhile the multifactoral citations you've provided include eg. one attributed to "the CDC", but that actually is from a terminology page on a section of their website about "Health Considerations for LGBTQ Youth", which cites two dead links, and that includes other contested and quite possibly offensive definitions like:
Lesbian: A woman who is primarily attracted to other women.
- Another statement is a "No Place For Transphobia" response by the AAA to the cancellation of an event whose whole point was to talk about sex ("Let’s Talk about Sex Baby: Why biological sex remains a necessary analytic category in anthropology"). Again - not a high quality biology source, just some political grandstanding on a website in a disputed area of contemporary politics.
- Another, sourced to the APA, is from a guide to working with transgender patients, on a page whose principal focus seems to be listing neopronouns like xe/xir.
- And another is WPATH.
- Assessing these sources, this is representative of exactly the increasing (anthropocentric) moves to redefine sex to create an "inclusive environment" for "gender diverse" people which two of the sources note. You are not providing overwhelming citations demonstrating a changing biological consensus on what sex actually is, but rather that many of these sources simply demonstrate the shifting values (especially in the US) around whether we consider sex to be something else instead because it is politic to do so. Void if removed (talk) 09:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- Plantdrew Faendalimas Both of you mention XY/XX chromosomes in your answer. Are you both aware that's not an option under consideration? It's barely present in reliable sources at all as a definition of sex, exactly because it's not the only sex-determination system.
- Also, both of you and Seraphimblade voted for disambiguation, so could you please clarify disambiguation between what and what? We still need an article on biological sex in general, because it's a topic that appears in the sources quite a lot. So in my view "disambiguation" just pushes the dispute back a step: there are some versions of it that I'd support and others that I wouldn't, based primarily on how our eventual article on biological sex defines sex. Loki (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- I did my last sentence said make one article about sex Biology and the other about sexuality. They are not the same and should be treated as such. Why you would propose an article on sex in biological organisms (a biology article) and not mention how they are different is not clear to me, in some species it is xx/xy in others it is zz/zw, or ww/zw and there are many others as such it should address them. I never said to keep it mammalocentric, in fact I said otherwise and it would be advisable not to do this as this is not a mammal encyclopedia. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- I would've thought my mentioning the ZW system in the following sentence would have made it clear that I was aware that the XY system wasn't an option under consideration. This article is presently about the reproductive (gamete) definition of sex. Under that definition birds with identical sex chromosomes (ZZ) are males, mammals with identical chromosomes (XX) are females, and sequentially hermaphroditic fishes are male/female based on the gametes they produce at a particular point in time.
- The sources for a multifactoral definition of sex are heavily anthropocentric (or mammalocentric). The XY system is the first (and often only) sex-determination system people learn about in school. Humans are the best studied organisms and we know that XY doesn't fully explain human sexes. Seeing that XY doesn't fully explain human sexes, anthropocentric sources propose a multifactoral definition. Non-anthropocentric sources would discuss non-XY systems (as does this article). ZW probably doesn't fully explain bird sexes.
- Are there sources using multifactoral definitions that explain why ZZ birds are (typically) considered to be male and XX mammals are (typically) considered to be female? Are there multifactoral sources that consider non-XY systems at all? If there are, there should be an article about multifactoral definitions of sex in different organisms. Multifactoral sources that are focused on humans could be used for an article on multifactoral definitions of sex in humans.
- I don't think this article is the primary topic of "sex" since it gets many incoming links that aren't at all about the topic of this article. If there were articles about multifactoral definitions of sex (in various organisms, or just in humans), I wouldn't consider the topic of this article to necessarily be the primary topic of biological sex. Plantdrew (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think there's also the ever-present question of "What would a reader typing in this term primarily expect to find information on?". If there's not one clear answer to that question, disambiguation is the best solution. In this case, I think a substantial number of readers who type "sex" into the search bar may expect to find information on sexual reproduction and/or sexual intercourse rather than sexual dimorphism. I don't think any one of those are the unambiguously clear answer to "This is what a reader who types 'Sex' into the search bar will generally expect to find", so, when I saw disambiguation mentioned as a possible solution, I think it probably is the best of those available. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- Not necessarily; there's also the WP:Broad-concept article. It's quite possible that that may be a better solution than disambiguation, and I invite anyone who leans toward "disambiguation" to revisit WP:BCA and see what you think. I think it would be ideal. Mathglot (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Given how relatively disparate some of those concepts are, do you think a single article could reasonably cover all three of them without being rather disjointed? That would be a good solution if possible, but I can't think of a good way off the top of my head to do that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, absolutely. This is not a Mercury case, where the concepts have nothing to do with each other. The 'Particle' example at BCA is illustrative, and pretty similar to this one, in the sense that it is a concept that is used to address many different, but related ideas in a scientific field (in this case, several closely related fields). Note that Particle is a short article: longer than a stub, but not by much. There is no need to pack everything into Particle—it's just an intro to the general concept of "Particle" in physics with links to the more specific meanings—just as there is no reason to pack everything into Sex.
- I think "Sex" should be handled just like Particle , with a smallish article introducing several meanings, with plenty of links leading to other articles, some of which might be parenthetically disambiguated versions of the title "Sex". That would essentially finesse this entire Rfc, not to mention a lot of the endless debate about what "Sex" means, and what to say about it. Yes it means a lot of things; no we shouldn't squeeze it all into one article, and no we shouldn't recycle the same Talk page discussions, endlessly arguing about it. We should acknowledge the polysemy, and deal with it via a BCA. Mathglot (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Just noticed Loki's comment (00:31, 15 Nov), "If you mean [[this]], or [[that]], or [[that-over-there]]...": exactly—if there's still argument about what an article means that's been around since 2001, then there's a problem, and I'm not sure another 22 years of discussion will solve it. Time for another approach. Mathglot (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- A broad concept article would include sexual intercourse? That's what hundreds of incoming links to this title intend. And that seems too broad to really be a single concept (sex/sexual intercourse have are concepts with an etymological relationship, but so is the planet/diety named Mercury). Plantdrew (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, same issue with this as Plantdrew.
- I agree that you could have an article encompassing reproductive sex, hormonal sex, phenotypical sex, chromosonal sex, etc etc. And you could also have an article encompassing sexual intercourse, sexual reproduction, and human sexuality, possibly among others. But I don't think you could do both of those things in one article. Loki (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Given how relatively disparate some of those concepts are, do you think a single article could reasonably cover all three of them without being rather disjointed? That would be a good solution if possible, but I can't think of a good way off the top of my head to do that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- Not necessarily; there's also the WP:Broad-concept article. It's quite possible that that may be a better solution than disambiguation, and I invite anyone who leans toward "disambiguation" to revisit WP:BCA and see what you think. I think it would be ideal. Mathglot (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think there's also the ever-present question of "What would a reader typing in this term primarily expect to find information on?". If there's not one clear answer to that question, disambiguation is the best solution. In this case, I think a substantial number of readers who type "sex" into the search bar may expect to find information on sexual reproduction and/or sexual intercourse rather than sexual dimorphism. I don't think any one of those are the unambiguously clear answer to "This is what a reader who types 'Sex' into the search bar will generally expect to find", so, when I saw disambiguation mentioned as a possible solution, I think it probably is the best of those available. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Scott Thomson If you mean sexual reproduction, sexual intercourse or human sexuality we already have separate articles for those. That's not what this RFC is about (though I agree they should go on a disambiguation page if we make one).
- @Plantdrew As far as I can tell, the issues that are causing biologists to reevaluate this in humans also apply in non-human animals, and are things like "we're already saying that human women post-menopause are still women, but the gamete definition claims otherwise". Some of the sources which use definitions like this are explicit about applying it to non-human animals, while others are clearly medical sources intended to be applied in humans.
- @Seraphimblade While that's a separate issue from the reason I originally started this RFC, I'd be alright with merging this page into sexual dimorphism and having this page be a disambiguation page between that and sexual intercourse/sexual reproduction. Loki (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Gamete-based definitions do not require lifelong gamete production, and they never define which individual is a woman. They define which group is conventionally called female. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- The groups are conventionally defined across different traits though. An organism can be reproductively male and phenotypically female and scientific source materials would likely specify or imply the trait(s) they’re referencing. Editor0525 (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- "Phenotypically female" is established in an organism with reference to gametes. That's how you know what the female phenotype is, and how a male organism can still be male with phenotypically female features. Void if removed (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Editor0525, I'm not sure what you're saying with An organism can be reproductively male and phenotypically female. That sounds like "An organism can produce sperm from ovaries". Gonads and internal anatomy are also part of the phenotype. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- for info: I mentioned sex reversals in nature and that my post grad supervisor had a paper in Nature on this, here is the link to it[1], for anyone interested. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Editor0525, I'm not sure what you're saying with An organism can be reproductively male and phenotypically female. That sounds like "An organism can produce sperm from ovaries". Gonads and internal anatomy are also part of the phenotype. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- "Phenotypically female" is established in an organism with reference to gametes. That's how you know what the female phenotype is, and how a male organism can still be male with phenotypically female features. Void if removed (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing With all due respect here, I pinged three people who I'm asking for responses from. I understand that you disagree with me but you don't need to respond to every thread. Loki (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- The groups are conventionally defined across different traits though. An organism can be reproductively male and phenotypically female and scientific source materials would likely specify or imply the trait(s) they’re referencing. Editor0525 (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- no probs I received this via the biology portal and I am a biologist so I see it through that lens. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 12:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Gamete-based definitions do not require lifelong gamete production, and they never define which individual is a woman. They define which group is conventionally called female. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- I did my last sentence said make one article about sex Biology and the other about sexuality. They are not the same and should be treated as such. Why you would propose an article on sex in biological organisms (a biology article) and not mention how they are different is not clear to me, in some species it is xx/xy in others it is zz/zw, or ww/zw and there are many others as such it should address them. I never said to keep it mammalocentric, in fact I said otherwise and it would be advisable not to do this as this is not a mammal encyclopedia. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- Has there been some sort of WP:CANVASSING going on? I notice there have been a bunch of !votes that are all going the same way from users with very low edit counts. Loki (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Starting with some data: checking page views at four Talk pages with open Rfc's (check 'log scale' for easier viewing), I dont see a smoking gun. That's not a proof of anything, it's just a first attempt to try to find evidence, if there is any. A good next step, would be to create a Google Custom Search Engine of popular social media and other forums where the troops are often mustered for this kind of thing, and then search your CSE for "wikipedia NEAR Talk:Sex" and see what you get (it's easy; completely web-based). Mathglot (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- I've found some evidence of off-wiki canvassing happening on Twitter, attempting to draw editors with a specific POV to this discussion. I'll not be posting any direct links here, as I don't want to risk outing any identifiable editors, however I will provide this info to a CU or ArbCom if requested. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have too. See my talk page. Loki (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Alright, I've gone through the discussion and added canvassed tags to the users that are most obviously canvassed (ones with extremely low edit counts or who popped up from long hiatuses to vote in this RFC). But I note that the earliest of the Twitter threads was posted at about 7:00pm UTC on Wednesday, November 15th, so any comment posted after then could potentially be a result of users with more established accounts having seen something about this on Twitter. I urge the closer, whoever it is, to look even more closely at the actual argumentation for each side than normal, and to not make this a simple vote.
- Also, Beczky has said on my talk page they're the same user that reported the canvassing on my talk page, and has also said they came from the Twitter thread to oppose the canvassed opinions. And like I told them on my page, I don't really think they've done anything wrong per se (in fact I'm grateful for being told about this), but that still definitely counts as being canvassed, so I tagged them even though they do actually have a pretty substantial reasoning for their !vote. Loki (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Loki says on their talk page that "extremely low edit counts" is less than 500, a level of participation that applies to more than 99% of all registered editors. They did not tag editors in the top 1%.
- That said, I have no doubt that some editors heard about this discussion off wiki, and I suspect that we would be hearing from far more of them if participation on this page didn't already exclude brand-new accounts and unregistered editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- First of all, you're putting words in my mouth. You asked if that was the threshold, and I said that I didn't have an exact threshold but that was a reasonable estimate. I already gave my full criteria above:
[editors] with extremely low edit counts or who popped up from long hiatuses to vote in this RFC
. I looked at the edit histories of every editor who voted and tagged any that seemed especially odd. And I really don't think any of my decisions are arguable: besides the edit counts, one of the editors I tagged came out of a six-year-long hiatus to vote on this RFC and has not edited once since. - I could have tagged even more: there's a few editors above who don't normally edit in any of the topic areas this RFC pertains to, and who voted right at the time the tweets in question were attracting people to this page. But that wasn't clear enough evidence for me to be comfortable tagging any of those people.
- Ultimately, this is a decision that will have to be reexamined by the closer anyway, because, like I've said, it's very possible that several of the longer-standing users on this page saw it from Twitter. There's a burst of votes on the 15th and 16th which matches perfectly with the burst in activity from the tweet (see Mathglot's graph above). Loki (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- I said: "at a glance, it looks like you've accused all participants with fewer than 500 edits".
- You replied: "There wasn't a particular edit number I had in mind, but it basically was that, yes."
- You will have to forgive me for assuming that "yes" means "yes". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Well, the objection here is that "more-or-less" doesn't mean "yes, that's the precise criteria I used", but it's not really worth arguing about. Loki (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- First of all, you're putting words in my mouth. You asked if that was the threshold, and I said that I didn't have an exact threshold but that was a reasonable estimate. I already gave my full criteria above:
- I've found some evidence of off-wiki canvassing happening on Twitter, attempting to draw editors with a specific POV to this discussion. I'll not be posting any direct links here, as I don't want to risk outing any identifiable editors, however I will provide this info to a CU or ArbCom if requested. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's being discussed on Manifold, but that's likely a consequence of the canvassing rather than a progenitor. (No particular answer is being pushed there, and I think Manifold users are generally well-behaved enough to not disrupt a Wikipedia vote.) I don't know where it originally came from, an anonymous user was the first to create a market on it. KingSupernova (talk) 07:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Starting with some data: checking page views at four Talk pages with open Rfc's (check 'log scale' for easier viewing), I dont see a smoking gun. That's not a proof of anything, it's just a first attempt to try to find evidence, if there is any. A good next step, would be to create a Google Custom Search Engine of popular social media and other forums where the troops are often mustered for this kind of thing, and then search your CSE for "wikipedia NEAR Talk:Sex" and see what you get (it's easy; completely web-based). Mathglot (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: there is more than one article on the topic of sex or sex versus gender -- so having difference in some sources might just be that those links apply somewhere else. Not saying it's so, just saying that a source on sex doesn't necessarily go into *this* article on sex. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- How does (
"Sex is a biological construct based on traits including (...)"
go together with WP:ISATERMFOR? Perhaps it could be more agreeable to phrase it without explicitly saying "construct", e.g. just"Sex is a set of traits including (...)"
or something like that. NicolausPrime (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)- Saying that something is construct (I believe what's meant by biological construct is "a thing society has decided is a thing, about something involving biology") isn't quite like saying that it's a term for something.
- Influenza happens to be a term for something that isn't a construct (Influenza A virus would exist and infect humans even if society weirdly agreed that it didn't exist and didn't infect us); money happens to be a term for something that is a construct (it would be valueless except that we've all decided that it has value). We write the articles to say "Influenza is a disease" and "Money is a way to pay for stuff".
- The latter could be written as "Money is a construct about how to pay for stuff" (after all, there's no inherent reason why certain pieces of paper should be accepted as a way to pay for stuff). To say that "Money is a construct about payments" is to say "Money is a thing we've all agreed is about payments..."; to say that sex is a construct based on traits is to say "Sex is a thing we've all agreed is based on traits..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- Would syndrome be a better word in this context than "construct"? Articles for human sex chromosome aneuploidies such as Turner syndrome and Klinefelter syndrome are titled with "syndrome". Plantdrew (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- It seems to me that "(syndrome)" would be a decent disambiguation term for an article about how sex is determined in individuals of various species. "(anisogamy)" could be used to disambiguate an article covering species that have a particular sex-determination system that can be applied to most individuals. Plantdrew (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- Strongly opposed to 'syndrome' as a disambig term, as it means "disorder" or "disease", so, definitely not. Mathglot (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- A syndrome isn't necessarily a disease; strictly speaking, it is a characteristic collection of multiple signs and symptoms. Since the biologists declare that this half is male and that half is female based on a single factor (production of sperm vs egg), it's not really a "syndrome". I suppose one could stretch it a little and claim that the signs associated with sexual dimorphism constitute "a syndrome", such that I have "female syndrome", but that sounds a bit like declaring that one overly cheerful co-worker to have "cheerful morning person syndrome". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, you're right, but it's irrelevant. The point was, that a syndrome is an abnormal condition, and sex (in any of the meanings discussed above, take your pick) is not. Thus whereas titling or disambiguating "Turner..." and "Klinefelter...'" with syndrome is perfectly appropriate, it would be anathema for this article. Even more strictly speaking, and following this sidebar on what syndrome means to its conclusion: yes, a syndrome is a collection of s&s as you point out, but that's not all: more specifically, it is a collection of s&s which have no known mechanism; i.e., they appear to co-occur for reasons we don't understand. We talk about pneumonia—not pneumonia syndrome—because we understand the mechanism; but we talk about idiopathic pneumonia syndrome because we don't. Mathglot (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that the word wouldn't be understood. It's a bit like the Genesis creation myth problem: It really is a myth, using that word as defined by scholars, but readers would hear "story that is not true" instead of "story of inestimably large social significance". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Clarification: by "for reasons we don't understand", I meant "for reasons scholars in medical science don't understand", not the average reader. Mathglot (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that the word wouldn't be understood. It's a bit like the Genesis creation myth problem: It really is a myth, using that word as defined by scholars, but readers would hear "story that is not true" instead of "story of inestimably large social significance". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, you're right, but it's irrelevant. The point was, that a syndrome is an abnormal condition, and sex (in any of the meanings discussed above, take your pick) is not. Thus whereas titling or disambiguating "Turner..." and "Klinefelter...'" with syndrome is perfectly appropriate, it would be anathema for this article. Even more strictly speaking, and following this sidebar on what syndrome means to its conclusion: yes, a syndrome is a collection of s&s as you point out, but that's not all: more specifically, it is a collection of s&s which have no known mechanism; i.e., they appear to co-occur for reasons we don't understand. We talk about pneumonia—not pneumonia syndrome—because we understand the mechanism; but we talk about idiopathic pneumonia syndrome because we don't. Mathglot (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- A syndrome isn't necessarily a disease; strictly speaking, it is a characteristic collection of multiple signs and symptoms. Since the biologists declare that this half is male and that half is female based on a single factor (production of sperm vs egg), it's not really a "syndrome". I suppose one could stretch it a little and claim that the signs associated with sexual dimorphism constitute "a syndrome", such that I have "female syndrome", but that sounds a bit like declaring that one overly cheerful co-worker to have "cheerful morning person syndrome". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Would syndrome be a better word in this context than "construct"? Articles for human sex chromosome aneuploidies such as Turner syndrome and Klinefelter syndrome are titled with "syndrome". Plantdrew (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Meta
This article is tagged as being within the scope of these content WikiProjects:
Loki has notified these WikiProjects:
I will go notify the ones that were skipped. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- The RFC was advertised for 30 days. I have listed this discussion (without any comment) at Wikipedia:Closure requests#Sex#RFC: Definition of Sex. It may be days or weeks before anyone volunteers to summarize the discussion, and until then, there is no prohibition on continuing the discussion as/if/when people feel like it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Hermaphrodites
Plantsurfer and Peter coxhead, I'd like to have a simple, everyday example in the lead that helps people (including older kids) understand that hermaphroditism is normal state for some organisms. In popular culture, it tends to be sensationalized in a freak show kind of way, and I think that waving vaguely in the direction of flowering plants or something else of your choosing would be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know why you think waving vaguely towards a populist view is the solution. Land plants have been swinging both ways for half a billion years, and their aquatic ancestors for twice that. Hermaphroditism is THE NORM in flowering plants. Single-sex flowering plants are in the vast minority, but in-between there is complexity that has no parallel at all in human sexuality.Plantsurfer 19:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that the first paragraph has much room for complexity. I'd like that sentence to point attention towards plants (or, really, any example that you and Peter think is a good idea). I'd rather that the stereotypical fourteen-year-old boy, upon encountering the word hermaphrodite in the first paragraph was nudged towards thinking "Oh, right, that drawing of pistils and stamens we had to do in biology class" instead of "The guys at school were telling a funny story last week".
- The end of that paragraph currently says just "An organism that produces both types of gamete is hermaphrodite." I think some slight addition, like "such as most plants", would help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with that. I suggest changing "An organism that produces both types of gamete is hermaphrodite." to "Organisms that produce both types of gametes, such as most flowering plants, are hermaphrodite or monoecious." That should be covered by citation 3.
- I don't like the wording of the next sentence - "In non-hermaphroditic species, . ." I suggest changing it to "In dioecious species, . ." or "In species with separate sexes, ."Plantsurfer 00:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps "In species with separate sexes (dioecious)..."? That way people learn the word, but also know we're talking about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- While I'm all for covering plants, alternation of generations (and exactly where plant gametes are being produced) wasn't something I understood until college. Hermaphoditism in gastropods and worms was something I understood in high school. Plantdrew (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Plantdrew. Yes, it's good to cover plants. However, doing so accurately in one or two sentences is very difficult because of alternation of generations and the overwhelming dominance of the sporophyte generation in vascular plants. For animals and bryophytes the statement "An organism that produces both types of gametes is hermaphrodite" is correct (but it's monoicy not monoecy in bryophytes). Maybe "A hermaphrodite organism is one that produces both types of gametes, either directly as in animals or indirectly as in vascular plants" without mentioning monoecious? Peter coxhead (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think you are overthinking it. The sentence I offered above specified flowering plants. I don't think it is necessary to cover the entirety of sexual complexity in plants, merely to provide an example that covers the overwhelming majority.Plantsurfer 12:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Consider the definitions in The Kew Plant Glossary. On p. 54, "hermaphrodite, bisexual plant with stamens and pistil in the same flower", and on p. 20 "bisexual, having both sexes in the same flower, or in the same inflorescence." The point is that applied to flowering plants, hermaphrodite does not mean 'producing both kinds of gamete', it means, in lay language, 'having both stamens and pistils in the same flower' or more technically 'having both sexes of gametophyte in the same flower'. Confusing gametophytes with gametes leads to the error of calling pollen sperm. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, Heslop-Harrison (1972) emphasised that sexuality is a gametophytic property, but control of the determination of the sex of gametophytes in heterosporous plants is exerted by the sporophyte.[1]: 138–139 JH-H says "Customarily, monomorphic, monoclinous species are termed hermaphrodite, and monomorphic species with diclinous flowers, monoecious." He also says "Flowers either contain both stamens and carpels, in which case they are termed monoclinous or hermaphrodite*, or stamens or carpels alone, in which case they are said to be diclinous (sporophyte is dioecious) or unisexual." Stace 4th edition prefers to use the term bisexual instead of hermaphrodite.
- If necessary the complexities of land plant sexuality can be dissected at length in the body of an appropriate article. I don't think this is the one, and I definitely don't think the lead of Sex is the right place to air these concerns either. There is a clear, sourceable precedent for the use of the term 'hermaphrodite' to describe the sexuality of bisexual angiosperms, and I really don't think that is likely on its own to lead to the misconception that pollen=sperm. [1]
- Plantsurfer 14:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Consider the definitions in The Kew Plant Glossary. On p. 54, "hermaphrodite, bisexual plant with stamens and pistil in the same flower", and on p. 20 "bisexual, having both sexes in the same flower, or in the same inflorescence." The point is that applied to flowering plants, hermaphrodite does not mean 'producing both kinds of gamete', it means, in lay language, 'having both stamens and pistils in the same flower' or more technically 'having both sexes of gametophyte in the same flower'. Confusing gametophytes with gametes leads to the error of calling pollen sperm. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead and @Plantdrew, is it factually true that hermaphroditism is seen in:
- most (i.e., not all)
- flowering plants (i.e., not other kinds of plants)?
- If alternating generations happens in less than 50% of flowering plants, that would not make the statement about "most flowering plants" be incorrect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Alternation of generations occurs in ALL vascular plants. In fact it is true for all land plants and many algae.
- Yes, 71% of Dicot species and 73% of monocot species are hermaphrodite. Only ~3% of monocots and 4% of dicots are dioecious. [2]: 140
- Nothing I have said so far implies that hermaphroditism does not exist in other kinds of plants. Plantsurfer 18:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- I had somehow formed the misimpression that hemaphroditism (=this individual plant produces both gametes) and alternating generations (this individual plant produces one, and its offspring will produce the other?) were mutually exclusive states. I see that I need to go read the article on this subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing Alternation of generations does not carry any implication that an individual plant produces only one type of gamete. Many plants (all of which have alternating generations) produce both types of gamete, not necessarily simultaneously. The alternation bit is about what happens when the mature sporophyte produces spores by meiosis - the spores are haploid and develop by repeated mitosis into a multicellular haploid gametophyte, (something unknown in animals), the function of which is, as the name implies, to produce gametes.Plantsurfer 19:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- WAID, sporophytes don't produce gametes directly, but (in flowering plants) do "host" gametophytes. Your misimpression gets at why I suggested not giving plants as an example of hermaphrodites for the lead. The majority of flatworms and annelid species are hermaphroditic and those can be given as examples in the lead without going into alternation of generations in plants. (I'd also suggested gastropods, but it appears that the majority of gastropod species aren't hermaphroditic (although some gastropod clades are almost exclusively hermaphroditic)). Plantdrew (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing Alternation of generations does not carry any implication that an individual plant produces only one type of gamete. Many plants (all of which have alternating generations) produce both types of gamete, not necessarily simultaneously. The alternation bit is about what happens when the mature sporophyte produces spores by meiosis - the spores are haploid and develop by repeated mitosis into a multicellular haploid gametophyte, (something unknown in animals), the function of which is, as the name implies, to produce gametes.Plantsurfer 19:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- I had somehow formed the misimpression that hemaphroditism (=this individual plant produces both gametes) and alternating generations (this individual plant produces one, and its offspring will produce the other?) were mutually exclusive states. I see that I need to go read the article on this subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think you are overthinking it. The sentence I offered above specified flowering plants. I don't think it is necessary to cover the entirety of sexual complexity in plants, merely to provide an example that covers the overwhelming majority.Plantsurfer 12:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Plantdrew. Yes, it's good to cover plants. However, doing so accurately in one or two sentences is very difficult because of alternation of generations and the overwhelming dominance of the sporophyte generation in vascular plants. For animals and bryophytes the statement "An organism that produces both types of gametes is hermaphrodite" is correct (but it's monoicy not monoecy in bryophytes). Maybe "A hermaphrodite organism is one that produces both types of gametes, either directly as in animals or indirectly as in vascular plants" without mentioning monoecious? Peter coxhead (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- While I'm all for covering plants, alternation of generations (and exactly where plant gametes are being produced) wasn't something I understood until college. Hermaphoditism in gastropods and worms was something I understood in high school. Plantdrew (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps "In species with separate sexes (dioecious)..."? That way people learn the word, but also know we're talking about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- About the plural vs singular (this diff): I think that using the singular tends to detract from the idea of hermaphroditism being normal. It's "that one weird individual" (did you see the photos of the honeycreeper with bilateral gynandromorphism last week? [2]) instead of "yeah, that's just normal sexual development for a huge number of species". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: I think it needs to be absolutely clear that hermaphrodite applies in the first instance to individuals: each individual hermaphrodite can produce both eggs and sperm. Secondarily, a species can be described as hermaphroditic if every 'normal' member of the species is a hermaphrodite. That's why I prefer the singular there. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think the singular leads people to think about humans with unusual disorders of sex development, when we want them to be thinking about normal sexual development in non-mammalian species. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: I think it needs to be absolutely clear that hermaphrodite applies in the first instance to individuals: each individual hermaphrodite can produce both eggs and sperm. Secondarily, a species can be described as hermaphroditic if every 'normal' member of the species is a hermaphrodite. That's why I prefer the singular there. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b Heslop-Harrison, John (1972). "Chapter 9 Sexuality in Angiosperms". In F.C. Steward (ed.). Plant Physiology VIC a treatise: Physiology of Development from seeds to sexuality. London: Academic Press. pp. 133–271.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
JHH
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
First sentence
Generally, I think that editors spend too much time thinking about the first sentence, so if y'all think I'm overthinking this, just tell me. But I had an idea.
The first sentence is currently:
Sex is the trait that determines whether a sexually reproducing organism produces male or female gametes.
We could shorten it to say:
Sex is the trait that determines which type of gamete is produced by a sexually reproducing organism.
(The links to male and female could go where those words already exist in the third sentence of the first paragraph, i.e., "By convention, organisms that produce smaller, more mobile gametes (spermatozoa, sperm) are called male...".)
What do you think? Would this be an improvement at all? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I personally think the first sentence is fine as it right now.CycoMa1 (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- First reaction: no. Because it leaves open the impression that maybe there are other types; third gender gamete? Turner's gamete? CAIS gamete? Silliness, of course, because, we want to say amongst ourselves, duh, NO; but with all the misinformation and lack of knowledge around the whole topic and the sex/gender confusion lurking around the corner, do we want to open the door even a crack to more confusion? That said, I'm open to your reasoning; why do you think it would be an improvement? Mathglot (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed with Mathglot. I think the existing sentence is clearer, and from a purely stylistic perspective (which is admittedly pretty subjective) I don't see an advantage in changing it. Also, clarity in facts is more important anyway. Crossroads -talk- 22:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think what irritates me about this is that we could also, with equal accuracy, write that "Fertility is the trait that determines whether a sexually reproducing organism produces male or female gametes". Pedantically speaking, fertility is about whether; sex is about which. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with WhatamIdoing; the focus ought to be on what/which, rather than whether. Terrapinaz (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think what irritates me about this is that we could also, with equal accuracy, write that "Fertility is the trait that determines whether a sexually reproducing organism produces male or female gametes". Pedantically speaking, fertility is about whether; sex is about which. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed with Mathglot. I think the existing sentence is clearer, and from a purely stylistic perspective (which is admittedly pretty subjective) I don't see an advantage in changing it. Also, clarity in facts is more important anyway. Crossroads -talk- 22:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)