LunaKlatzer (talk | contribs) →Include intersex, disorder of sex development and other influences on sex development: Added comment manually, as seemingly the auto-feature was not working for me Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
::::Well, yes it only considers humans, as I wanted to primarily highlight intersex and DSD conditions. Though if this isn't the right place, sorry ^^" Though my point still stands regarding the addition of intersex conditions and DSDs. Since also intersex itself is not classified as a disorder, just DSDs which lead to one being intersex. So I would still say it's fair to include intersex and reference it when talking about human chromosomes, as there are also other factors causing DSDs. Since it's still a significant portion of the population and assuming it is a spectrum seems to be fair, as our current definition of intersex is someone who has a different sex development or condition than the binary norms for male and female. To that, there is ongoing research in this area and even if one of my sources was not credible or reliable enough, I would say nature.com is a good journal: https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a So I feel it is really fair to include intersex and DSD conditions on human sex development, as intersex individuals still make up a significant portion of the world-wide population (https://www.intersexequality.com/how-common-is-intersex-in-humans/). To that, there even is a current proposal in Australia to completely redefine sex to be a spectrum to also include intersex individuals: https://www.uow.edu.au/media/2021/anatomy-texts-should-show-sex-as-a-spectrum-to-include-intersex-people.php So I feel it would be good to add that, even if the research is quite recent and its an ongoing discussion. Though, if this is not the correct page for that, then I am really sorry ^^" I can move it somewhere else, where it is more specific on humans, if that would work better. Otherwise, I can really just create an completely new article talking about the idea and differentiation to the binary system [[User:LunaKlatzer|LunaKlatzer]] ([[User talk:LunaKlatzer|talk]]) 21:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC) |
::::Well, yes it only considers humans, as I wanted to primarily highlight intersex and DSD conditions. Though if this isn't the right place, sorry ^^" Though my point still stands regarding the addition of intersex conditions and DSDs. Since also intersex itself is not classified as a disorder, just DSDs which lead to one being intersex. So I would still say it's fair to include intersex and reference it when talking about human chromosomes, as there are also other factors causing DSDs. Since it's still a significant portion of the population and assuming it is a spectrum seems to be fair, as our current definition of intersex is someone who has a different sex development or condition than the binary norms for male and female. To that, there is ongoing research in this area and even if one of my sources was not credible or reliable enough, I would say nature.com is a good journal: https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a So I feel it is really fair to include intersex and DSD conditions on human sex development, as intersex individuals still make up a significant portion of the world-wide population (https://www.intersexequality.com/how-common-is-intersex-in-humans/). To that, there even is a current proposal in Australia to completely redefine sex to be a spectrum to also include intersex individuals: https://www.uow.edu.au/media/2021/anatomy-texts-should-show-sex-as-a-spectrum-to-include-intersex-people.php So I feel it would be good to add that, even if the research is quite recent and its an ongoing discussion. Though, if this is not the correct page for that, then I am really sorry ^^" I can move it somewhere else, where it is more specific on humans, if that would work better. Otherwise, I can really just create an completely new article talking about the idea and differentiation to the binary system [[User:LunaKlatzer|LunaKlatzer]] ([[User talk:LunaKlatzer|talk]]) 21:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::::{{re| LunaKlatzer}} Regarding the definition of intersex you mentioned. There’s actually no consensus on the definition of intersex. The article on [[Intersex]] addresses this. Your third source is aware individuals with XXY have Klinefelter syndrome. The word syndrome is used for disorders. |
|||
:::::the second source you provided is not a reliable source in the context of medicine or biology. |
|||
:::::The author for the first source said [[https://mobile.twitter.com/claireainsworth/status/888365994577735680?lang=en this on Twitter.]] So Claire Ainsworth isn’t really defending your argument. |
|||
:::::Also I don’t think making a new article would be ideal. Also I feel like you are misunderstanding my point when I brought up that it only thinks about humans.[[User:CycoMa1|CycoMa1]] ([[User talk:CycoMa1|talk]]) 21:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:57, 9 January 2022
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2021
I would like to correct a few MINOR mistakes. - Regards Hughyuu (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Oops misread a source
I misread a source in the evolution section. The source was actually arguing that it's unclear if anisogamy first led to evolution of gonochorism or hermaphroditism. My mistake.CycoMa (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Biased twist makes for rethorical nonsense as in not sensible?
Hi
Im only partaking in this discussion sporadically. My intention was to bring something to attention (a fresh pair of eyes sort of thing). If it is of meaning, I dont know since im not familiar with Wikipedia mechanics
Quote: All pair bonded primates are sexually monomorphic,[118]
What the quote states: All in the class "pair bonded" are sexually monomorphic by defenition. Thats what "pair bonded" means. Emphasizing that a subclass in "pair bonded" that is "all of the pair bonded primates" dosent contribute any rational meaning. It simply states that a subclass of this class is in this class.
Trying to interpret what was intended of stateing: Maybe im reading to much into it but I read it as a way of emphasizing something without support for it? Maybe a mistake?
What to do?: Either way shouldnt it be corrected by perhaps elaboration, etc or else erased?
Off topic thought: Out of curiosity since this sort of mishaps in most litterature on and off line and in verbal discussioms is common, do you have a plan, idea or notion of what to do about it? It makes up the bulk of most discussions and is rarely as far as I can see sinister but.. why? Im not saying that everything has to be effective (although sometimes im affected by that "perversion") im trying to say that it tare at the social glue and depletes fuel beacuase discussing then feels like arguing or fighting and nothing good comes out of it, to heck with it, I dont bother. ?
/Johan Johan157256 (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Johan157256: I believe pair bonded in a nutshell means monogamous.CycoMa (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- But any @Johan157256: You titled this section with bias. But, I am a little confused on what you consider biased in this article?CycoMa (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Johan157256 You may be conflating the words monogamous and monomorphic. Pair bonded may mean monogamous, but the article does not state that pair bonded means monomorphic. It states that there is a tendency in that direction, and explains that the tendency is the consequence of low intensity of sexual selection (Individuals are pair bonded, so sexual competition is low). Plantsurfer 19:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- But any @Johan157256: You titled this section with bias. But, I am a little confused on what you consider biased in this article?CycoMa (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Include intersex, disorder of sex development and other influences on sex development
I would like to suggest adding a general section for intersex and disorder of sex development and reference other influences that can change sex development, as the article only mentions the standard chromosomes. Since sex is already being defined by some researchers as a spectrum and I would want to make that clear in this article.
Though, since I know this is a major article, I wanted to start a discussion to hear what others say to that, and how perhaps I can add that somewhere LunaKlatzer (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- @LunaKlatzer: here’s the issue with that sex spectrum argument. They usually rely on DSDs/intersex conditions.
- Theses are classified as disorders, even intersex activists are aware they are disorders.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- I understand that, and well, in that case, I can understand that not being good for adding in. Still, with current research, we know that chromosomes are not a definite factor for defining sex development and I still feel the article does not consider most of the other genes and effects that influence sex development. Since, even as a disorder, there are differences that can occur and I think it would be good to at least reference them. Since at the moment it's fully centred around male XY and female XX, and does not even include most normal chromosome variations, like XYY or XXX. So, my point is not now changing everything to be defined as a spectrum (as research is still going on and it's an ongoing discussion in biology), but adding the information in those articles, it's not as definite as the phrasing makes it out to be. LunaKlatzer (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- @LunaKlatzer: here’s another issue with that. That argument only thinks about humans. Terms like male and female aren’t exclusive to humans, there are species out that don’t even have sex chromosomes and can be classified as male or female.
- Also I’m not sure what sources you read but I saw the sources you added to the article on XY determination which make similar claims.CycoMa1 (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Let’s just say some of those sources you added to the XY sex determination article aren’t reliable.CycoMa1 (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well, yes it only considers humans, as I wanted to primarily highlight intersex and DSD conditions. Though if this isn't the right place, sorry ^^" Though my point still stands regarding the addition of intersex conditions and DSDs. Since also intersex itself is not classified as a disorder, just DSDs which lead to one being intersex. So I would still say it's fair to include intersex and reference it when talking about human chromosomes, as there are also other factors causing DSDs. Since it's still a significant portion of the population and assuming it is a spectrum seems to be fair, as our current definition of intersex is someone who has a different sex development or condition than the binary norms for male and female. To that, there is ongoing research in this area and even if one of my sources was not credible or reliable enough, I would say nature.com is a good journal: https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a So I feel it is really fair to include intersex and DSD conditions on human sex development, as intersex individuals still make up a significant portion of the world-wide population (https://www.intersexequality.com/how-common-is-intersex-in-humans/). To that, there even is a current proposal in Australia to completely redefine sex to be a spectrum to also include intersex individuals: https://www.uow.edu.au/media/2021/anatomy-texts-should-show-sex-as-a-spectrum-to-include-intersex-people.php So I feel it would be good to add that, even if the research is quite recent and its an ongoing discussion. Though, if this is not the correct page for that, then I am really sorry ^^" I can move it somewhere else, where it is more specific on humans, if that would work better. Otherwise, I can really just create an completely new article talking about the idea and differentiation to the binary system LunaKlatzer (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- @LunaKlatzer: Regarding the definition of intersex you mentioned. There’s actually no consensus on the definition of intersex. The article on Intersex addresses this. Your third source is aware individuals with XXY have Klinefelter syndrome. The word syndrome is used for disorders.
- the second source you provided is not a reliable source in the context of medicine or biology.
- The author for the first source said [this on Twitter.] So Claire Ainsworth isn’t really defending your argument.
- Also I don’t think making a new article would be ideal. Also I feel like you are misunderstanding my point when I brought up that it only thinks about humans.CycoMa1 (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)