This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Template:Vital article Template:Findsourcesnotice
On the intersex part
I’m gonna state this. I have seen sources say that intersex does occur in gonochoric species. But I can’t find any sources that say it exclusively occurs in gonochoric species. Also I read through the one of the books and they said something about hermaphroditism occurring in humans. (Although the book doesn’t state what type of hermaphroditism) the book also mentioned something about Rudimentary hermaphrodites (doesn’t define what that is but, I did research a little bit on it and it’s nonfunctional)
Rudimentary hermaphroditism has also occurred in gonochoric species. CycoMa (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Any reference to hermaphroditism in humans is almost certainly WP:UNDUE/WP:EXTRAORDINARY terminology and really refers to intersex/DSDs. Crossroads -talk- 05:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- To be fair none the sources of I found stated that hermaphroditism in humans are functional, they also mentioned how it’s anomaly in humans.
- It is possible that the authors may have been a little confused on that topic. Since the term hermaphrodite isn’t a medical term anymore.
- Or maybe when they are talking about hermaphroditism in humans they are talking about Rudimentary hermaphroditism.(which they have stated occurs in gonochoric species.) The more I looked into rudimentary hermaphroditism it became more clear they are talking organisms with DSDs/Intersex conditions.
- I can’t really say with absolute certainty about all this because they didn’t go into detail about it.CycoMa (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ah found a source that explains rudimentary hermaphroditism. Right here.CycoMa (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Wait let me look at that again.CycoMa (talk) 06:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- It’s also very unlikely they are claiming humans are trioecious since all of them are aware trioecy is extremely rare. Also the article on Gonochorism states that mammals are solely gonochoric.CycoMa (talk) 06:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ah here’s a source stating that rudimentary hermaphroditism occurs in gonochoric species.
- Actually I think it would be a better idea to quote what they said.CycoMa (talk) 07:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
“Hermaphroditism is the sex condition typical of many seed plants and many invertebrates, but it can also occur as a development anomaly, in many other species, even among the vertebrates, including humans.” (page 122.)
This was stated in this book.
However this is what they said later.
“Different forms of rudimentary hermaphroditism have been described, both in functional gonochoric species belonging to clades where the hermaphrodite position is primitive and in any case dominant, such as the trematodes, and in species belonging to strictly gonochorism clades.” (page 132.)
I don’t know this book does stuff like this. I believe they could be mistaken in some areas.CycoMa (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- I may tag other Wikipedians and see what they think. CycoMa (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh yeah by the way, I looked the source again and it states humans are gonochoric. The book was merely just using old medical language. I’m commenting this down because I know these discussions are archived.CycoMa (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Lead: Still troublesome
@Crossroads, CycoMa, Mathglot, and Plantsurfer: I'm happy with the "Sex is" part, but I'm not satisfied seeing sex defined as a division. In my mind, sex is an attribute both in the generic and in the linguistic sense. Yet, the article refers to sex both in the attributive sense and in the nominal sense, so that should be taken into account in the lead. Additionally, I agree with Plantsurfer that mentioning division twice is awkward. Some alternatives:
- Sex is a property, typically male or female,[a] relating to organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction.
- Sex is a property, typically male or female,[b] attributed to organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction.
- Sex is an attribute, typically male or female,[c] as a property of organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction.
Cast your vote here: □ --Kent Dominic·(talk) 20:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oh my lord this again, look Wikipedia is not a democracy please check WP:DEM. Sex being a division is cited in source one. Changing it to any of these is original research. CycoMa (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hold on a minute I believe some of the sources I cited may have a better definition. I’ll just have to check. CycoMa (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Source #1 says it's a category, not a division. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 05:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hold on a minute I believe some of the sources I cited may have a better definition. I’ll just have to check. CycoMa (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Check again it says “are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions”.CycoMa (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions." It's not divisions ... are divided. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 09:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- That would be an improvement, but my other quibble about that sentence is the phrase "..and most other living things .." That is manifestly false. Eukaryotes do sex, prokaryotes do not, and the lead of the eukaryote article contains this statement: "Eukaryotes represent a tiny minority of the number of organisms". This needs to be fixed. Plantsurfer 11:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'll just put this here: "Sex is a phenotypic trait expressed as male or female in humans and most other eukaryotes that determines an individual's reproductive function."Plantsurfer 11:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Plantsurfer: I like where you're going with that, but the punctuation needs tweaking to avoid the dangling modifier: "Sex is a phenotypic trait, expressed as male or female in humans and most other eukaryotes, that determines an individual's reproductive function." Or, to satisfy the WP:OR hounds, "Sex is a phenotypic category, expressed as male or female in humans and most other eukaryotes, that determines an individual's reproductive function." I agree that sex is a trait/attribute/characteristic, but "category" is what the source says. (Certain snarky editors are loath to sacrifice sourced stuff for common sense.) Another thing: the "either of two divisions" verbiage in the current lead is semantically at odds with "typically." Meaning, if it's deemed either of two, "typically" is pleonastic; if it's deemed one of several (as CycoMa argues), your approach makes even better sense. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 12:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'll just put this here: "Sex is a phenotypic trait expressed as male or female in humans and most other eukaryotes that determines an individual's reproductive function."Plantsurfer 11:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- That would be an improvement, but my other quibble about that sentence is the phrase "..and most other living things .." That is manifestly false. Eukaryotes do sex, prokaryotes do not, and the lead of the eukaryote article contains this statement: "Eukaryotes represent a tiny minority of the number of organisms". This needs to be fixed. Plantsurfer 11:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions." It's not divisions ... are divided. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 09:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Seriously like I said I agree with you guys the lead has issues but, you guys aren’t even helping in fixing that issue.
- @Plantsurfer: you have been POV pushing and making arguments that goes against what the sources are saying, I have also called you out on your either statement in the last discussion.
Sex is a phenotypic trait expressed as male or female.
— User:Plantsurfer- Yeah that’s technically original research, although I believe I remember one of the sources I cited said something similar.
- @Kent Dominic:
In my mind, sex is an attribute both in the generic and in the linguistic sense.
— User:Kent Dominic - This is why I’m calling you a POV pusher and accusing of original research. Tell me what source says sex is a attribute. If there aren’t any sources that say it’s a attribute then Wikipedia shouldn’t say it is.
- @Kent Dominic:
It's not divisions ... are divided
— User:Kent Dominic- Do you even know what division and divided even means.
- If you guys want to add your views on what sex is then find a source that states what y’all are saying and add it. If not then this discussion is a complete waste of time.CycoMa (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
For anyone who is intransigently blockheaded in mistaking substantive "POV pushing" for the semantic identification of a lexical category: "intelligence quotient" is a nominal phrase that includes "intelligence" as an attribute. Yes, the foregoing assertion constitutes an unabashed bit of WP:OR for the benefit the lexicographically deficient - especially those editors who seem bent on tilting at windmills.
Need more tilting? Some additional WP:OR fodder:
This is why I’m calling you a POV (attribute) pusher and accusing of original (attribute) research. Tell me what (attribute) source says sex is a [sic] attribute. If there aren’t any (attribute/determiner) sources that say it’s a [sic] attribute then Wikipedia shouldn’t say it is. - CycoMa
Is someone STILL eager to tilt? Here's MORE fodder from the article for anyone's next screed:
*Sex (attribute) chromosome. *Sex-(attribute)determination (attribute) system. *Sex (attribute) organs. *Sexual (attribute) organs. *Sexual (attribute) reproduction. *Sex is either (subject complement) of two (attribute) divisions, typically (adverb) male (attribute) or female (attribute).
My WP:OR regarding grammatical parsing knows no bounds. Shame on me.
Anybody need a dose of substantive WP:OR? Here goes: The attributive sense of "male" and "female" in this article's lead conflicts with the nominal sense of "male" and "female" in those hyperlinked articles. Mathglot (talk · contribs) said he's fine with that bit of inconsistency, and I'm not making a big deal of it. I'm just calling it it out as a lexicographical oversight that could be remedied if anyone were sufficiently enterprising OCD maniacal enough to have a hack at it.
Tilt away!
--Kent Dominic·(talk) 01:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- There you go original research. You list of things such as sex chromosomes, sex organs, sex determination, and sexual reproduction. If you actually read through the article you would know that stuff like that varies across species. I mean seriously did you read anything presented in this article or are you only paying attention to the lead?
- What you are doing is wasting people’s time, so this discussion is over.CycoMa (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- All I am asking of you is to present a source that states sex is a attribute. Also I have no idea why you are so obsessed with the word “division”. CycoMa (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- As I have said many times I do kind of agree with your concerns, but we shouldn’t put down that “A is B” because of our own personal analyzation. That goes against Wikipedia’s policies.
- Also don’t just slam gibberish in the comments because someone disagrees with you. CycoMa (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Kent, I know you're a stickler for exactitude in points of grammar and use of le bon mot, and I sympathize, but your last comment seems too invested in the grammatical/logical aspects of the article, and not enough on the meat and potatoes. Honestly, the average reader isn't going to be too concerned with the niceties, and how important is it really to 99% of the readership if we use division/attribute/aspect/kind/type and so on? Not very, I'd say. I know you're passionate about this topic, but for it to really have an impact here, you'd have to get something added to the MOS about it, and then it might trickle down to here eventually. But given what *this* article is about, I just think it's too fine a point, and too divorced from concrete improvements to the article to be worth a debate, at least, on this page.
- Btw, intransigently blockheaded could be fighting words for some, so please avoid that kind of expression when possible. (Also, slightly O/T: can you please avoid using
<br>
, and use{{br}}
or<br/>
instead? The former screws up syntax highlighting on the entire page after it.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)- CycoMa, I sympathize as well, but what is gibberish to some, is a point of study and scholarship to others. Kent's grammatical digression is perhaps not entirely on point here, but give him some slack (i.e., just ignore that stuff) because he makes good points about improving the article when he sticks to the point. Also, POV pusher was a bit over the top; other than "stick to correct usage of English" I don't think he was really pushing anything. As far as the article itself is concerned, I don't even see that much disagreement on the basics.
- If the word division / attribute is going to really be an issue here, maybe we can finesse it, by rewording in a way to avoid that; for example, by not starting the sentence with "Sex is...". One possibility, is patterning it after the first sentence of the #Overview section:
One of the basic properties of life is reproduction, the capacity to generate new individuals, and sex is an aspect of this process.
- Or perhaps by using sex as a predicate nominative, instead of the subject. Maybe something like:
Sexual reproduction requires both male and female of the species, and this distinction is known as their sex.
- or this:
The distinction between the male and female of species that reproduce by sexual reproduction is known as their sex.
- Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- I’m just saying it just feels like so many people are getting all worked up over a single sentence. Doesn’t this just seem a little ridiculous. I’m pretty sure most readers would have a basic idea what the article is talking about. But, tons of editors are over analyzing one sentence. CycoMa (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Those or something very similar could be good. Another possibility which I will suggest, combining the current one and a suggestion by Plantsurfer, is:
Sex is a phenotypic trait, male or female, into which organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction are divided.
Could also be tweaked to say "the phenotypic trait of male or female". Borrowing from your idea, I also likeSexual reproduction requires both the male and female of a species, each of which is [a phenotype known as] a sex.
(With the bracketed phrase as optional.) I don't think we should call the distinction sex, since the sexes are the states of male and female, not the division between them per se. I'm sure with a bit more discussion we can work something out. - CycoMa, let's cool it with the accusations. It's true that historically there has been occasional activism at this article, but I don't think anyone in this discussion is doing that. I would be firmly against that if it crops up again. We all seem to agree on the fundamentals, and are just working on refining the wording. I appreciate the science-mindedness and focus on science of the editors we have, including you. Crossroads -talk- 06:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- But don’t you think we should define sex based on how biologists define it. Come to think of it I think two of the sources I cited may have a decent definition of it. I think going by the phenotype option is a little bit of original research, I don’t know many sources that directly state that’s what sex is.(I found only one that states that tho.)
- Come to think of it I noticed that a good amount of sources that can easily define male, female, and hermaphrodite. But, can’t provide an exact definition of sex itself. CycoMa (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry bad grammar what I met to say was. A lot of sources I found can easily define male, female, and hermaphrodite. But they don’t provide the definition of sex itself. CycoMa (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- @CycoMa: You're absolutely right. That's been the the root of my point all along. And I haven't given up on you (yet). I hope the proverbial lightbulb will come on when you see how your saying "Sex is typically male stuff and female stuff but also a lot of other biologically obscure-and-hard-to-neatly-pin-down stuff that often defies clear-cut categorization, division, and characterization" equals "Sex is an attribute that (insert your preferred definition HERE). I'm neither a biologist nor a biologist wannabe. I don't have a bias regarding what a biological definition should entail in order to enlighten the average reader with some practical knowledge about what sex is. I'd have no qualms with whatever the consensus is. And, once again, the current lead is 200% better than the whiff that was there in early March when I started the current discussion. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 07:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Mathglot:For the record:
- I was fine with the current lead, troublesome as it was (and is).
- @Plantsurfer: Proposed rewording it, and I seconded the concerns.
- I agree with CycoMa that "division" is WP:OR. I disagree that it's therefore objectionable. "Division" makes reasonable sense, but it's not my preferred wording.
- I was content to let "division" stand until Plantsurfer mentioned it as problematic.
- I agree with Plantsurfer that "division... divided" is stylistically awkward - another point that I was willing to let go as I'm not one to prefer style over substance.
- I'm nearly at wit's end trying to explain how "division" (or "category") is substantively reasonable despite not being wholly accurate while "attribute" is somewhat of a bland copout.
- Underscoring the "attribute" versus "division" discussion is a nod to CycoMa's salient point, i.e., that "sex" - whatever it is - isn't universally bifurcated along male versus female divisions, categories, characteristics, traits, etc. It's whatever and however the biologists trend in their ability to recognize how the distinctions are manifest depending on the organism. Male versus female sex attributes is a 95-99% no-brainer; sympathies to CycoMa for the 1-5% of sexual manifestations otherwise. Calling it a "division" begs the question, "What divisions besides the 'typically' male and female divisions?" Calling it an attribute recognizes that it's male, female, and whatever else, as described or asserted (i.e. attributed) by whomever.
- The article itself goes back and forth between attributive and nominal use of "sex." (By a loose eyeball accounting, it's about 85% attributive and 15% nominal. Same percentages apply for the uses of "male" and "female.")
- My interest at the outset was, and remains, conforming the lead with the majority (i.e. 85%) of the mentions of "sex" - and, putatively, to male and female - in the article. The uses of "sexual" is 100% attributive, so the article is unambiguous on that point.
- And re. the bon mots, the mischief-maker in me is clever enough not to go ad hominem. In other words, I let blockheads - whomever they might be - feel as blockheads are unless they're too blockheaded to catch the drift in the first place. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 07:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- “ Male versus female sex attributes is a 95-99% no-brainer; sympathies to CycoMa for the 1-5% of sexual manifestations otherwise.”
- By the way I’m the one who put that 95% of animals are gonochoric and 99% of vertebrates are gonochoric. Which means that a species either has a male or a female. To those species the connect of sex being a division applies to them. But met to all species.
- Because this article talks about sex from plants, animals, and even fungi.(although sex isn’t really applied to fungi.)
- @Kent Dominic: also I suggest you try to use less slang speech in your comments. Because at times it’s hard for me to understand what you are saying. CycoMa (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Kent Dominic: My main issue overall is that I read a little on this topic. I’m not a biologists but attribute isn’t quite language the sources I have read use. Most of them would basically define it by reproductive roles. Not by body characteristics. The issue is that they don’t use “sex is blank” but they say “male is a organism that produces sperm.” I’ll probably make another comment tag y’all and see what y’all think. CycoMa (talk) 08:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- @CycoMa: You probably know tons more about this topic than I do. I'm not claiming any expertise. I'm not trying to be an arbiter of expert opinions on this topic. I solely want a lead definition for a target Wikipedia user who doesn't know how biological sex differs from sexual intercourse. The March 26 lead was horrid: "Organisms of many species are specialized into male and female varieties, each known as a sex." Underlying that lead is the idea that there's a male sex and a female sex. True, but only 95-99% true. Professional biologists have no need to define "sex" in terms that general readers can understand. I hope you'll agree that we need a lead definition, however it's worded, that is supported by the professionals as well as by common sense. The definition doesn't need to merely recite what professionals have written academically. For instance, "Sex is the thing that distinguishes various phenotypes, typically male or female, among organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction." Sure, it's original research. Yes, "thing" is hardly a scientific term. True, there's no mention of "attribute" as I think there ought to be. But, would the average reader understand that definition? I think so. To be clear, I'm not advocating such a lead. Instead, I'm advocating practicality. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 10:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Kent Dominic: My main issue overall is that I read a little on this topic. I’m not a biologists but attribute isn’t quite language the sources I have read use. Most of them would basically define it by reproductive roles. Not by body characteristics. The issue is that they don’t use “sex is blank” but they say “male is a organism that produces sperm.” I’ll probably make another comment tag y’all and see what y’all think. CycoMa (talk) 08:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Notes
Sex vs. sexual reproduction
Thinking about how to word the first sentence in the previous section, got me to thinking about another, even more basic question: since srticle title policy state that "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles," and regarding WP:PRECISION, that the title "should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that."
Given that, I would ask, how do we describe the scope of the articles Sex and Sexual reproduction, and what is their relationship? Is one a subset of the other? Are the sister topics? Put another way, what are some things that are in-scope in "Sex" but out of scope for "Sexual reproduction" (or vice versa)? If we cannot make a clear distinction between the two articles, then we have a problem. Maybe even a problem, that illuminates why we are having so much trouble in the discussion section above.
I can see one possible way out, which is to keep Sexual reproduction as is; I think we all understand what that is, and I think readers do, too; or they can go to the article to find out. "Sex" though, isn't so clear, which is one of the reasons there are so many discussions that seem to go in circles, here. One idea to consider, is to recast this article as a WP:Broad-concept article. This guideline describes a way to write an "article that addresses a concept that may be difficult to write about because it is abstract, or because it covers the sometimes-amorphous relationship between a wide range of related concepts." That seems tailor-made for the concept of "sex", and maybe we should consider that? Mathglot (talk) 07:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- I check older versions of gender and sex related articles. And I believe the article on gender used to be this article. Also I’m not very supportive of this discussion because this article is about whether a organism is a male, female, or hermaphrodite. Not what they do when they have sex with each other. CycoMa (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- If by "what they do when they have sex with each other", you meant "sexual intercourse", that's actually another article: Sexual intercourse, which is another meaning of "sex". Which in a way, kind of argues *in favor* of having a BCA, not against it. Because "sex" can mean "sexual intercourse", or "types of gametes", or "genitalia"; heck, it's even a verb meaning "to determine whether an organism is male or female" (as in, "sexing a kitten"). Wiktionary has seven different definitions for it, and that's just for the noun.
- You said, "...because this article is about whether a organism is a male, female, or hermaphrodite." Well, who says so? Is that what "Sex" means, and nothing else? Wikipedia editors don't get to decide what an article title means; if the title is "Sex", then by article title policy, it must be about whatever reliable sources say it is, not what we say it is. I think the literature would show that "Sex" has many meanings in reliable sources, and if that is so, then our article should reflect that. Or else, the title of the article must be changed to match the topic of "whether a organism is a male, female, or hermaphrodite", so we don't have to include other meanings. Perhaps, "Sex (male or female)", or "Sex (biology)", or whatever it is you mean by M/F/hermaphrodite. Mathglot (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Reliable sources do say what it is. It’s just they aren’t always clear. I have read through the sources one source said sex was something along the lines of sexual phenotype, another said it was an organism’s reproductive function, another one said reproductive strategy. But, at the end of the day these labels are something we humans made. Things in nature don’t have labels attached to them.
- They are very clear on what male, female, and hermaphrodites are it’s just they aren’t exact when saying all of them. CycoMa (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Also I’m pretty sure a reader would have a good idea what this article is talking about if they read through it a little. CycoMa (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- @CycoMa: You might want to have a look at line 9, where the article says, "Males and females of a species may be similar, called isomorphism," which links to mathematical isomorphism. Perhaps genetic isomorphism is more appropriate but, as you've already noted, I'm not interested in editing stuff beyond the lead. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 10:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Kent Dominic·: I noticed that I’m aware. CycoMa (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Sex as a phenotype
In humans, mammals, some plants (I am not trying to compile an exhaustive list here !) sex is determined by sex chromosomes. Ergo, it is under control of genes that in the standard language of biology determine the phenotype. The phenotype consists of the expression of genetically determined phenotypic traits. The following paper refers to sex as phenotype: [1] Plantsurfer 12:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Okay but, a lot of source also define a organism’s sex by what gametes they produce. I mean even Richard Dawkins thinks this.
- Also that source is from the article 1950s so I’m not entirely sure all information still holds up. CycoMa (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- But I’m not entirely against the idea of sex being a phenotype. I just think there needs to be more sources.CycoMa (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- OK, so I haven't come across the holy grail yet, but here is another example. I think it is inconsistent to be cool with the idea that sex is genetically (and/or epigenetically) determined and deny the legitimate use of the the terms phenotype or trait:
- "Embryonic gonads are thus unique in that they are the only organs that can develop in two mutually exclusive phenotypes."
- https://doi.org/10.1002/dvdy.23924 Plantsurfer 18:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- But I’m not entirely against the idea of sex being a phenotype. I just think there needs to be more sources.CycoMa (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- I haven't stumbled upon the holy grail either. I found like three sources in the comment below this one.CycoMa (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- King Arthur to Percival: "Try again." --Kent Dominic·(talk) 19:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- I haven't stumbled upon the holy grail either. I found like three sources in the comment below this one.CycoMa (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Barr, Murray L. (1959). "Sex Chromatin and Phenotype in Man". Science. 130 (3377): 679–685.
Definitions of sex
Okay, I went through the sources I added to see some definitions of sex. I am commenting this down to see which one yall approve of.
This source defines sex as something along the lines of.
"Sex: the sexual phenotype of an individual."
this source (on page 112) states this.
"We refer to an individual's sex condition as its state with respect to sexual function, either male or female, but also both male and female (hermaphrodite) or neither male nor female (sexually indeterminate).
this source states this. (keep in mind the link I am presenting is merely a free version.)
"However, it should be noted that male and female sex are more usefully defined by reproductive strategy, rather than by immutable physiological characteristics (Schärer 2017)."
These are the sources I could find on this topic at best. I have more but, I can't check all of them.CycoMa (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
this source from Oxford states this.
"The sum of the characteristics concerned with sexual reproduction and the raising of young, by which males, females, and hermaphrodites may be distinguished." Although I am not sure about this one.CycoMa (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I also found this source.
"The definitions of ‘sex’ and ‘sexes’ vary. Here we define ‘sex’ as the union of gametes and genomes from two individuals (or in some hermaphrodites, from the same individual), and ‘sexes’ (male, female) are defined by the type of gamete an individual produces (see above)."
That is another source.CycoMa (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Or we can also go to Britannica where they state.
"Sex, the sum of features by which members of species can be divided into two groups—male and female—that complement each other reproductively."
I am aware Wikipedians aren't the biggest fans of Britannica. But, it does give decent (although very generalized) information.CycoMa (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh it should be mentioned some of these sources may have outdated info.CycoMa (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
And as I stated many times for some reason they are able to define male, female, and hermaphrodite decently. But, they don't give a proper definition of sex itself.CycoMa (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- @CycoMa: My suggestion: Use all of that cited stuff to draft your own restatement of what sex is. Post that restatement here. If the restatement is reasonably based one or more cited sources, I can all but guarantee that you'll find a consensus in your favor, and no one will accuse you of WP:OR. As always, my concern is merely that the definition is worded in a semantically sound, topically relevant, accessible way. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 19:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- ⇡⇡ THIS. Mathglot (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- A lot of the definitions I presented are already cited in this article as a matter of fact.
- Reading through these sources it appears sex is defined by something along the lines of “sexual phenotype” or “reproductive role”.
- And the article also hints that as well. CycoMa (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
To whom it may concern: Please stand down on the baseless WP:OR and WP:NPOV objections regarding the lead
So many contributors (incl. @Mathglot, Crossroads, Plantsurfer, and Kent Dominic:) have proposed viable, practical, unbiased definitions. None of the drafts are intended to satisfy every critic. Let's all keep in mind that whatever definition is proposed need not be a quotation of a published source. Indeed, a practical restatement of a cited source should not be disparaged as WP:OR. And adding one's own style of wording and/or semantic sense need not be disparaged as breaching WP:NPOV. In other words, editors who proffer an edit based on a cited source does not equate to editors' plying of original research, activism, or bias. Upon attainment of an imperfect consensus, please stand down accordingly. Amen? Meanwhile, food for thought:
"Defining sex is much like trying to nail a jellyfish to the wall." - Rosanova v. Playboy Ents., Inc., 411 F. Supp. 440, 443 (S.D. Ga. 1976).
--Kent Dominic·(talk) 19:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- I did the research and presented the sources in the earlier discussion. I am starting to think we are coming closer to a consensus. The only concern is that there are so many definitions of sex a lot of them are inconsistent or contradict each other. CycoMa (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Maybe we already have consensus
Is anybody else getting exhausted over multiple conversations about the definition, regarding what seems (to my view, at least) like increasingly minor points of difference? As Kent said above, we needn't get a *perfect* definition, and compromise is part of what we do here. If we have a lead sentence that is good enough, and nobody has *major* objections to it, then can we just call it a day, say we've got consensus even if nobody thinks it's perfect, and move on? This one sentence is not the only issue in trying to improve the article, and we've spent an awful lot of time on it already. @Crossroads, Kent Dominic, CycoMa, and Plantsurfer: (please ping anybody I forgot)
Here is what we have now (as of rev. 1021152741):
Sex is either of two divisions, typically male or female,[a] into which organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction are divided.[1][2]
I don't think we need a formal Rfc, but if anyone thinks we do, we can reorganize this as one. If you have objections to the current lead sentence, please list them below as briefly as possible, and whether you can live with it as is. This is an attempt to see if we already have consensus, and if not, where the sticking points are. If we find we *do* have consensus, that means we should hit the pause button on further discussions about the first sentence for a while, so we can move on to other things. I'll go first. Mathglot (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Mathglot: More than my concern about the word "division," I'm not sold on the idea of using "either of two," which is too limiting, given everything that CycoMa has pointed out. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 21:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Mathglot and CycoMa: If there's no consensus for "attribute," I'd be just as happy with: "Sex is one or more characteristics, typically male or female,[b] regarding organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction." --Kent Dominic·(talk) 21:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Mathglot and CycoMa: And if everyone's stuck on "divisions," then I recommend: "Sex is a phenological division, typically male or female,[c] regarding organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction." <-- Omits needless words. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 21:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Informal survey
This survey is for rev. 1021152741 of 05:37, May 3, 2021.
- Acceptable as is – No strong objections. The duplication (divisions...are divided) is a minor annoyance. No objection to attribute, feature, characteristic, aspect instead of division. Otherwise, good to go as is. Mathglot (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- I’m fine with it a little bit, only issue is that some language needs tweaking. But overall it’s fine for the moment. I’m pretty sure most readers would understand what this article is talking about anyway. If a better definition appears we will add it. CycoMa (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- @CycoMa, Mathglot, and Plantsurfer: I'm not 100% sold on equating "sex" and "division" given the ways that "male," "female," and "sexual" are used in the article. I'd be happier with this:
Sex is an attribute, typically identified as male or female, that defines the phenotype of 95-99% of the organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction. [3][4][5]
- That's not original research. That's a restatement of published sources. Five of the terms used in that restatement are internally sourced and hyperlinked. @CycoMa: Two of the items are your own sources (already in the article) regarding the 95% and 99% figures. In the end, "sex" and "sexual" are applied with equivalent attributive/adjectival meaning throughout the majority of the article. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 20:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Kent Dominic: That statistic is talking about animals not all species. That statistic doesn’t touch on plants or fungi.
- Also that statistic is talking about gonochorism. That basically means an organism is either male or female and doesn’t change it's sex. Some sequential hermaphrodites are born female and change to male and the other way around.
- As we have said many times when this article talks about sex is talking about sex across almost all living things.
- I think division is just a good way to simply things down. CycoMa (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- My bad if I misread the stats. Anyway, if you have stats/sources that assert what percentage of species are identified primarily in terms of male/female versus something else, please post them for consideration. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 21:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think division is just a good way to simply things down. CycoMa (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Please, just *brief* comments here, about where you see the sticking points. I was hoping to keep the "Survey" section to very brief comments to see whether we are at consensus (currently appears like we are not) and just identifying where the sticking points are, and not trying to resolve them here. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Acceptable as is - no real objections, duplication of "division/divided" is of minor concern to me. Crossroads -talk- 04:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Discussion
Given the lack of agreement so far, it looks like this survey is heading to a "no consensus". Perhaps this group of five discussants who have been very active lately, is too small a group to reach a consensus, and we should move towards an Rfc. But let's wait and see what other comments are in the offing. Even if an Rfc is needed, this will be a valuable discussion if it points out where the sticking points are, as that will help us properly formulate an Rfc question. Mathglot (talk)
If this doesn't reach a consensus, then I would be inclined to try WP:MEDIATION next, before trying an Rfc, which could drag on. Pinging User:Robert McClenon just as a heads-up; we're not there yet, and perhaps one won't be needed. Mathglot (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Maybe we're not as far away as I thought. Kent, I missed your comments above the #Survey section; maybe this can still work here. Lets wait for remaining editors to weigh in. Mathglot (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- So far Kent is the only one really objecting to the status quo in the survey. But I'd like to bring up again my suggestion from above: "Sex is a phenotypic trait, male or female, into which organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction are divided." (Hermaphrodites are covered since they have male and female together in a single body.) If not, I'm happy with the current one. And I'd like to avoid dispute resolution. We have enough participants already; it just gets more confusing and time consuming bringing in more people, who may not be familiar with the issues. Crossroads -talk- 05:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Again, to set the record straight, Plantsurfer raised some issues after the period of quiescence, not me. I seconded the problematic issues, seeing as they were raised. Crossroads, your initial draft edit was substantively fine but semantically defective given that it was superb as a stand-alone definition but in conflict with its semantic use in the rest of the article. CycoMa criticized your draft as WP:OR - a criticism that was not apropos IMHO. I emended your draft semantically. Mathglot replaced my emendment substantively. My qualms about his replacement are less stylistic (i.e. the pleonastic "division ... divided" verbiage) than semantic since the article mostly uses "sex" in a characteristic sense (i.e. technically an attributive sense regardless of how the term is getting short shrift in this discussion). So, indeed - "Sex is a phenotypic trait, male or female, into which organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction are divided" is an outstanding iteration, semantically speaking, as it conforms to the majority of the article's subsequent mentions of sex, male, and female. I.e. trait, characteristic, and attribute all entail the same semantic usage re. its lexical category. Just one thing: For CycoMa's sake, I would hasten to add "typically male or female" to your draft but I wouldn't quibble without it since I doubt most readers are initially interested in the non-male/female varieties of sex. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 06:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps my suggestion of phenotypic trait may be too hardcore; also concede that the article doesn't use that genetic language elsewhere, but I would like to see the article using something approaching mainstream biological terminology rather than the office filing system terminology of "category" or "division". Attribute is not a word used much by biologists either. A term that is widely used by biologists to describe features or differences between individuals is "character" or "characteristic". I oppose the language of division . . . divided. For a start, in many organisms the characteristic is reversed as a normal feature of development or in response to environmental change, and some plant species may first be male, then hermaphrodite and end up female, all in their lifetime. Others mentioned in the article change from year to year. It is therefore NOT a division. I also argue the case for the use of "typically male or female" or alternatively simply adding "most" in front of eukaryotes. All eukaryotes are not the same, and it does no harm to readers to reveal that to them. It is our job to represent the facts, not to cherry pick the ones readers would like! End rant. So to cut to the chase -
- I would prefer the following form of the sentence:
- Sex is a trait expressed as male or female in humans and most other eukaryotes that determines an individual's reproductive function.
- I could agree to the following form of the sentence:
- Sex is a characteristic (an attribute if you absolutely must), expressed as male or female in humans and most other eukaryotes that determines an individual's reproductive function.
- Plantsurfer 09:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- I like "trait" or "phenotypic trait"; even with the latter, people can simply click the wikilink for a definition. It's no more technical than "eukaryote". But "trait" is fine. I don't see what the issue is with "organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction" rather than "in humans and most other eukaryotes", though. Not only does this avoid the highly technical term "eukaryote", but it also avoids putting undue weight on humans. So, like this perhaps:
Sex is a trait that determines an individual's reproductive function, male or female, in organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction.
Crossroads -talk- 22:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)- @Crossroads I approve of that! Plantsurfer 22:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- So do I! (For anyone not yet on board, "trait," "characteristic," "attribute," or "quality..." take your pick.) --Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm fine with trait, and support Crossroad's latest. Somebody pinch me, have we really found consensus? Mathglot (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- So, @Crossroads, Plantsurfer, and Mathglot: Does 3/5 agreement = consensus? If so, who does the honors? And when? I'm not up on the protocols. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 07:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm seeing 5/5, did I count wrong? I don't see anyone disagreeing with Crossroads's version. There's no fixed answer to your question, but if we wait a copla days and the discussion quiesces, then probably anyone can do it. Mathglot (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- I finally raised the blade and made the change - please remain calm. There may be some fallout to deal with, but presumably we can handle that without drama. The new sentence omits the note "[d]". I think that topic should be raised in the body of the article if needed, not in the lead. Plantsurfer 09:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm seeing 5/5, did I count wrong? I don't see anyone disagreeing with Crossroads's version. There's no fixed answer to your question, but if we wait a copla days and the discussion quiesces, then probably anyone can do it. Mathglot (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- I like "trait" or "phenotypic trait"; even with the latter, people can simply click the wikilink for a definition. It's no more technical than "eukaryote". But "trait" is fine. I don't see what the issue is with "organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction" rather than "in humans and most other eukaryotes", though. Not only does this avoid the highly technical term "eukaryote", but it also avoids putting undue weight on humans. So, like this perhaps:
- Again, to set the record straight, Plantsurfer raised some issues after the period of quiescence, not me. I seconded the problematic issues, seeing as they were raised. Crossroads, your initial draft edit was substantively fine but semantically defective given that it was superb as a stand-alone definition but in conflict with its semantic use in the rest of the article. CycoMa criticized your draft as WP:OR - a criticism that was not apropos IMHO. I emended your draft semantically. Mathglot replaced my emendment substantively. My qualms about his replacement are less stylistic (i.e. the pleonastic "division ... divided" verbiage) than semantic since the article mostly uses "sex" in a characteristic sense (i.e. technically an attributive sense regardless of how the term is getting short shrift in this discussion). So, indeed - "Sex is a phenotypic trait, male or female, into which organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction are divided" is an outstanding iteration, semantically speaking, as it conforms to the majority of the article's subsequent mentions of sex, male, and female. I.e. trait, characteristic, and attribute all entail the same semantic usage re. its lexical category. Just one thing: For CycoMa's sake, I would hasten to add "typically male or female" to your draft but I wouldn't quibble without it since I doubt most readers are initially interested in the non-male/female varieties of sex. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 06:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I think we're Done. Well, that was gratifying; thanks to all for valuable suggestions and discussion. Mathglot (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well said from someone who shares my sick sense of satire. I mean "sardonicism." No, wait - let me check the sources to see what I mean while I check for red marks from being rightly slapped in my cheeky face for not letting the sleeping dog lie. "Logophile." Ha! (Did I spell it right?) --Kent Dominic·(talk) 05:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Notes and refs
- ^ Stevenson A, Waite M (2011). Concise Oxford English Dictionary: Book & CD-ROM Set. OUP Oxford. p. 1302. ISBN 978-0-19-960110-3. Archived from the original on 11 March 2020. Retrieved March 23, 2018.
Sex: Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions. The fact of belonging to one of these categories. The group of all members of either sex.
- ^ Purves WK, Sadava DE, Orians GH, Heller HC (2000). Life: The Science of Biology. Macmillan. p. 736. ISBN 978-0-7167-3873-2. Archived from the original on 26 June 2019. Retrieved March 23, 2018.
A single body can function as both male and female. 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.
- ^ Sabath N, Goldberg EE, Glick L, Einhorn M, Ashman TL, Ming R, et al. (February 2016). "Dioecy does not consistently accelerate or slow lineage diversification across multiple genera of angiosperms". The New Phytologist. 209 (3): 1290–300. doi:10.1111/nph.13696. PMID 26467174.
- ^ Skinner, Michael (2018-06-29). "Evolution of Sex Determining Genes in Fish". In Pan, Qiaowei; Guiguen, Yann; Herpin, Amaury (eds.). Encyclopedia of Reproduction. Academic Press. p. 168. ISBN 978-0-12-815145-7.
- ^ Kuwamura, Tetsuo; Sunobe, Tomoki; Sakai, Yoichi; Kadota, Tatsuru; Sawada, Kota (2020-07-01). "Hermaphroditism in fishes: an annotated list of species, phylogeny, and mating system". Ichthyological Research. 67 (3): 341–360. doi:10.1007/s10228-020-00754-6. ISSN 1616-3915.
I’m gonna add a sex characteristics section
I’m gonna add a sex characteristics section because honestly it kind of makes sense. Also I’m not entirely sure that intersex paragraph belongs in sex determination.
What do y’all think? CycoMa (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
That’s odd for some reason sex characteristics is harder to research. Thought it would be easier to find sources on. CycoMa (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I was honestly hoping there would be encyclopedias that gave a definition of sex characteristics. But for some reason they only think about humans. CycoMa (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Sex: Other odds & ends
My main concern about the article has been its lead. Specifically, I've contended that its lead definition should be stated attributively rather than nominally. The use of the term, "attributive," is not essential to the definition itself. The salient point is that the article mostly uses "sex" (as well as "male" and "female") attributively (i.e. as an adjective) and not as nominally (i.e. as a noun). With belated props to @Newimpartial: his 19 March 2021 edit summary said, "We are defining adjectives here, not nouns." That's been the crux of my point all along.
If there's consensus for "Sex is a trait that determines an individual's reproductive function, male or female, in organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction" (or something essentially similar) as @Crossroads: proposed, my main concern will have been addressed. Moreover, thanks to Crossroads' 13 April 2021 edit of male, the leads of female, male, and the prospective lead for sex would all be semantically aligned along attributive lines. Yet, the remainder of this article occasionally lapses into the use of "sex," "male," and "female" in their nominal senses. E.g.:
- "In mammals, males typically carry an X and a Y chromosome..."
- "Females typically carry two X chromosomes (XX)."
- "Fungi have more complex allelic mating systems in which the sexes are more accurately described as mating types."
Such statements are independently valid as stand-alone assertions but they semantically conflict with the definition in the proposed lead. I'd like to think most readers would either (a) not care about the semantic conflict or (b) not notice the semantic conflict in the first place, but readers with an exceptional semantic eye will find such conflicts to be problematic. By contrast, the article on sexual intercourse is 100% semantically aligned with its nominal use of "sex."
My point with this thread is simply this: Along the semantic lines of indiscriminately/arbitrarily using "sex," "male," and "female" as an adjective (i.e. attributively) versus a noun (i.e. nominally), this article could stand some considerable improvement to avoid attenuation of an intended meaning. If I had more time and more topical interest, I'd offer some edits accordingly. Sadly for me but perhaps fortunately for others, I have neither the time nor interest in doing so. And, concerning the substantive merits of the article, I have absolutely zero observations, recommendations, or resources that I'm willing to contribute. I leave it to other editors to sort out any substantive shortcomings, expansion, omissions, redactions - whatever.
@Newimpartial, Crossroads, SlimVirgin, CycoMa, Plantsurfer, Mathglot, and Anyone else that I've missed: Cheers, and happy editing! --Kent Dominic·(talk) 01:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oh my fucking god, would you just knock it off. There is so many facts I want to add this article and you keep pestering me about some fucking lead. I’m trying my very best to be calm but you are pushing me to the limits. CycoMa (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Also how is it defining male and female in a arbitrary way. I literally cited like 7 sources to this damn article about how male and female is defined. CycoMa (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- I mean did you even listen to what I said. If you don’t have sources then you are wasting my time and everyone’s time. CycoMa (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- @CycoMa:, you're out of line. Stick to talking about how to improve the article. If you want to roll your eyes about something, keep it on User talk pages, not here, please. Mathglot (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Okay but, seriously this whole lead thing is getting annoying. Somebody call an admin, they may help and resolve this issue.CycoMa (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Admins do not resolve content disputes; that's not what they are here for. If you want a form of mediation from an impartial observer, there's WP:MEDIATION, there's third opinion, and there's also other forms of dispute resolution. Calling an admin is likely to call attention to your behavior, so I wouldn't; read WP:BOOMERANG. If you're frustrated, don't worry, it happens to everyone. Take a break, or just shift over to an article that isn't such a hot potato. Mathglot (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Section on sex characteristics
Seriously so many sources talk about sex characteristics but for some reason it’s so hard to find sources on sex characteristics itself. CycoMa (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Sex determination in plants
No mention of sex determination in plants of fungi. For some reason. As a matter of fact I haven’t seen any plant related articles touch on sex determination in plants for some reason.
Not saying we should have paragraphs on sex determination in plants for this article. But, it should be mentioned. CycoMa (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
This should also be the case for fungi. CycoMa (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- @CycoMa: The article briefly mentions Sex determination by chromosomes in the liverwort Marchantia and the flowering plant Silene. Sex determination in plants is complicated and probably deserves an article to itself. It is complicated by the alternation of generations in plants and the question of which generation does the sex determining. Free-sporing homosporous plants and endosporic heterosporous plants are different in this respect, and there are endless variations. The following article may be of interest: [1] This may be behind a paywall, unfortunately. There is also a book by CC Ainsworth entitled Sex determination in plants, (1999) ISBN 9781859960424, which has a fascinating chapter on "Male to female conversion along the cucumber shoot". These sources are just at the beginnings of molecular understanding of the processes involved, and there is a rich literature in the almost quarter of a century since, but summarising that for this WP article will be a challenge. See the article "The birds and the bees and the flowers and the trees: lessons from genetic mapping of sex determination in plants and animals" by D Charlesworth, JE Mank in Genetics, 2010. Also if you are short of articles on sex determination in plants I suggest you search Google Scholar with that phrase and see what you get. My search reported 531,000 results! Plantsurfer 08:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Cristina Juarez JoAnn Banks (1998). "Sex determination in plants". Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 1 (1): 68–72. doi:10.1016/S1369-5266(98)80130-1.
About source 26 and 27
Sources 26 and 27 have flaws and I will admit both sources are clearly political. I mean look at Joan Roughgarden Wikipedia article.
However I am including them in because a lot of things they say do align well what the other sources cited in this article say. They both have PHDs in biology as well, so they know a lot about the topic.
One of them stated there is a general consensus among biologists about anisogamy.(However, some of the language she uses comes off trying to manipulating or trying to mislead, like she talks about different morphs. She mentions how some males are mistaken as females. I have no idea I may need to reread what she says.)
So I’m adding them because here on Wikipedia we are supposed to represent many views on a topic. However I’m marking them as partisan to keep an eye on their reliability.
So yeah CycoMa (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
I actually changed my mind, one of the books I cited was literally criticized by 40 scientists. Also also the other source is questionable. CycoMa (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
My biggest mistake was that I knew those two sources were problematic.CycoMa (talk) 04:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sources renumber themselves whenever they are edited, so it would be much better to link the sources you talk about. You appear to be referring to this. I agree that better, mainstream sources should be used for such claims. Crossroads -talk- 06:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Honestly the reason I thought it would be a good idea to add them was because I wanted to show that many of the claims presented in this article are mainstream views.
- Like for example, gonochorism being dominant in the animal kingdom is supported by like three sources on this article. I have even seen sources from countries like Japan or India that agree with that notion.
- Does anyone know if there are any rules or policies on this?CycoMa (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I may replace a few sources
I may replay a few sources cited in this article with better ones. The sources themselves aren’t bad but, it would be a good idea to replace them with way better ones. Like I cited a fish biologist for one paragraph on a topic for plant biology.
Also in that sentence that says 95% of animals are gonochoric. Two of the sources is from plant biologists.
I’m not saying these are bad sources to be exact, it would just be more appropriate to cite biologists in a certain field. CycoMa (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I cited a professor from a Christian university
I found out that this book is written by a biologist from a Christian university. I looked through the book and it doesn’t appear that anything presented in the book is pseudoscience. Like this guy does appear to accept evolution as a fact, so he doesn’t appear to be one of those anti-science biologists or anything like that.
I’m just pointing this out just in case someone finds issues with the source.CycoMa (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I found a source that may be useful
I found [article] there some facts in it that may be useful.
First it’s states this, “One thing biologists do agree on is that males and females count as different sexes. And they also agree that the main difference between the two is gamete size”
There is also mention this species of ants where a queen has to mate with two males.
I think this source may be useful because it states that most biologists agree on someone and it mentions different view points among biologists. It’s a decade old so I can’t say if everything in it still holds up.
I want to add it but, I don’t know where to put somethings to be honest. CycoMa (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry about that here’s the link. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020183 CycoMa (talk) 01:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
gametes
@CycoMa: In plants, gametes are produced by a multicellular haploid phase or generation called the gametophyte. Pollen and ovules are not gametes. Pollen contain microgametophytes strongly reduced to usually four cells, one or two of which produce male gametes. Ovules contain megagametophytes that are again strongly reduced and produce egg cells. Plantsurfer 09:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior
Could someone with access to the above mentioned source please fix the citation of the chapter on "Body Size and Sexual Dimorphism"? It seems that the author is Robert Cox and that Jae Choe is the editor. The current Google Books link doesn't seem to include the chapter, so it may be in a different edition or volume. In the meantime, are there any other RS to source the claim that most animal species have larger females? It's certainly mentioned in plenty of reliable news sources, but I presume we'd rather have a journal/textbook source. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Pinging @CycoMa: who is using this source to verify the above-mentioned claim, and @Plantsurfer: who is adding a citation needed tag. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I’ll see what I can do. Google books does that at times where you can’t see it a times. CycoMa (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oops made a mistake. Do you see it [[1]]? CycoMa (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I can! Thank you. On page 9, I'm seeing:
Plantsurfer, do you find that sufficient to remove the citation needed tag? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)As a very broad generalization, females are larger than males in the majority of animals.
- Yes, that seems to fit the bill. But the article does not explain the observable fact that most people will be familiar with the general rule that males are larger in mammals, birds, reptiles and other vertebrates. Species with larger females will be unfamiliar and rarely encountered by the majority of people, so the article needs to explain what kinds of animals have larger females and how these come to be the majority. Plantsurfer 19:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, and I agree. There's some good context for that on that same page of the book that we might use. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I may look into why this is the case. (Haven’t found a source that explains why this is the case yet, but it may be have something to due with insects because, like I think I found a source that said the reason 95% of animals are gonochoric is because of insects.) So just give me a moment or two to look into this.CycoMa (talk) 05:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- If that is correct, then it is frankly misleading to say the "majority of animals": it would make more sense to refer to insects as the exception. Plantsurfer 13:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- I may look into why this is the case. (Haven’t found a source that explains why this is the case yet, but it may be have something to due with insects because, like I think I found a source that said the reason 95% of animals are gonochoric is because of insects.) So just give me a moment or two to look into this.CycoMa (talk) 05:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, and I agree. There's some good context for that on that same page of the book that we might use. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, that seems to fit the bill. But the article does not explain the observable fact that most people will be familiar with the general rule that males are larger in mammals, birds, reptiles and other vertebrates. Species with larger females will be unfamiliar and rarely encountered by the majority of people, so the article needs to explain what kinds of animals have larger females and how these come to be the majority. Plantsurfer 19:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I can! Thank you. On page 9, I'm seeing:
- Oops made a mistake. Do you see it [[1]]? CycoMa (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Article too short
It’s clear that this article is too short. This is weird because this article is one of the most viewed articles on this site and it’s considered a very important article for many wiki projects. Also there are tons of topics not mentioned Things like Sex reversal aren’t mentioned. Secondary sex characteristics aren’t mentioned. Simultaneous hermaphroditism isn’t mentioned. The protist section is ridiculous short.
And so much more, not saying all these topics should have paragraphs but, for a topic that’s considered important and widely viewed its appropriate that these topics should have at least one or two sentences.CycoMa (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Citation overkill
I may have done some citation overkill and honestly that’s my fault. I wanted to prove that the claims presented in this article are mainstream views among biologists.
At this point it’s very obvious that many of the claims presented in this article are mainstream views among biologists. So I may go through the article and remove some sources. CycoMa (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Repetition
There is considerable repetition in this article. The most egregious example is the repetition between the second paragraph of "overview" and the first of "Sexual reproduction". These sections need to be merged and edited into a single section. I suggest that it would be out of place in Overview, because that section should be an overview of Sex, not an overview of Sexual reproduction, which is another article. I would be happy to do this if other editors agree. Plantsurfer 11:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- That’s fine by me.CycoMa (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Actually the more I think about the more I think that’s not the best idea. I may remove some bits and there. But, not too sure about merging overview and sexual reproduction.CycoMa (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am not suggesting merging all of it, only the bits where there is clear repetition. Plantsurfer 18:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Actually scrolling through the article the overview section doesn’t really have much purpose so I wouldn’t mind it being gone.CycoMa (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Removed sources
I have removed some sources because they repeating things other sources already said.
Don’t worry people I’ll put them back in later but, I will use them for a different purpose.
Like the book on Evolution of Sex determination will come in handy for sex determination.CycoMa (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately I can’t access many of the sources on google books and I don’t wanna spend to much money. Unfortunately I can’t tell what claims where presented in those books because no one cited the pages, I can’t go to resource request. Good news for me I have tons of free time tomorrow. Luckily I have a library in my area.CycoMa (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Also it’s weird people would add a further reading section and not cite where they got the information from. It’s hard to verify the claims presented.CycoMa (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Just 3 more removed sources to put back.CycoMa (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Sex determination
The first two sentences of this section add up to complete nonsense and attention needs to be given to the clarification template. What is "this is true" referring to?? I suspect you are thinking of hermaphroditism, but that is not stated. Plantsurfer 09:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I suspect the reason that sentence is there is because someone used one of the books in further reading but didn’t add a citation.CycoMa (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I may take a look at the books those books but that may take a very long while.CycoMa (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
vagina, aedeagus and penis - oh my!
I'm not particularly interested in entomology, and I've never done my own OR to see the exact mechanics of how certain insects mate, but something about this sentence bugs [*ahem*] me: "A few insects reproduce through traumatic insemination, where a male pierces a female exoskeleton with an aedeagus." The "exoskeleton" term seems technically accurate - perhaps better than "genetalia" but vastly superior to skin. Yet, the professional lit. variously refers to male insects':
- insertion into genetalia
- piercing an exoskeleton
- piercing an abdomen
Indeed, Wikipedia's traumatic insemination article says "the male pierces the female's abdomen with his aedeagus." To the extent that statement is accurate, this article might need to reflect similar phrasing. Additionally, this article's assertion that "In species that mate this way, too much mating can harm the females" seems to be an understatement; "can harm" should probably read "harms," right? Comments, Plantsurfer? Is there a Bugsurfer? --Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- The source from nature says that too much mating can cause harm to the female. And the source from nature says that the males pierces the skin(just calling it that for simplicity.)
- It’s basically just a brief mention of it. There is already an article that goes further in depend on the subject.CycoMa (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't doubt what the source says. I'm questioning the source's semantic WP:Reliability concerning "can harm" versus "harms." As an editor, my instinct is to emend the statement according to common sense; i.e. piercing an exoskeleton/abdomen seems intrinsically harmful rather than probably harmful. Again, I'm no bug expert. Maybe some bugs can re-grow the pierced part(s) with little or no harm. If there's an insertion rather than a piercing, then my point is moot. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 01:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Is the sentence being discussed in this thread really relevant to the subject of this article? It's more relevant to animal sexual behaviour or copulation (zoology). Just remove it. Plantdrew (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Plantdrew well the sentence is a section about sexual reproduction in animals so basically it is.
- It’s basically supposed to be a brief explanation on the topic.
- Not sure why Kent is rambling on about this. Kent Dominic do you find the current sentence problematic?CycoMa (talk) 04:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Kent Dominic sure it’s very obvious why piercing a female skins is harmful but there is already an article on this so I don’t think there should be too much of an explanation.
- Unless maybe another sentence or two could fix things up.CycoMa (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Plantdrew: I have the same question, but I'm predisposed to letting stuff like that go rather than deleting it or merging it, esp. absent discussion. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 05:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- @CycoMa:
- You're only peripherally right about the sentence's relevance. A close call, but I'd side with removing it. As mentioned above, I typically leave such stuff to other editors.
- You might want to run words like "rambling" through the WP:Civility algorithm. FRIW, I'm scarcely offended by anything, especially when I consider the source. Use the same language with thin-skinned editors, however, and you risk being
invited to the principal's officesubject to an administrative timeout. (Admin. has already taken notice of posts like this.) - I don't think the "can harm" sentence is problematic per se. Instead, it's either (a) obviously and pathetically banal for the reasons you mentioned - and therefore needlessly included in this article, or (b) it's counterfactual if regeneration is involved. Frankly speaking, I really don't give an at's rass (my favorite spoonerism) about it, which goes to show that the whole treatment is further afield from the article than merits even a passing mention in a topic relating to "a trait that determines an individual's reproductive function," not reproductive sex acts, and not insect love. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 05:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Honest I support the sentence being there, this article touches on sex from various species. It’s appropriate to mention weird ways of sexual reproduction like that.
- I’m eventually gonna add Male seahorses getting pregnant soon to this article and adding on protists.
- I don’t see any reason to remove it entirely. I could edit the sentence for you and add a little more to it if you want?CycoMa (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- I’m honestly not sure about it’s removal to be honest, me personally I want this to an long article since this article is one of the most viewed articles on the site and is a very important article in many wiki projects.CycoMa (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
@CycoMa: For the record, Plantdrew suggested removing the "can harm" sentence. I replied that "I'm predisposed to letting stuff like that go rather than deleting it or merging it, esp. absent discussion." On the other hand, I said "I'd side with removing it" if there's a consensus. The source itself uses "can" as a WP:WEASELWORD. Everyone knows that too much mating can harm anyone or anything. But, so what? Does it in fact harm a Strepsiptera female? Does it typically or irreparably cause harm? Does it occasionally cause irreparable harm? The "can harm" verbiage begs those unanswered questions. That's not to say that the questions and any answers rightfully belong in this article. IMHO, the whole treatment is better suited for the traumatic insemination article. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 09:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- The sentence strays outside the topic of the article, imho. This article is about sex, (male, female, sexual dimorphism, sex determination, etc.) not about sexual reproduction. Weird methods of copulation (which are legion) are beyond its scope - observe the hatnote. Leave it out. Plantsurfer 12:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Plantsurfer hey I noticed you put Chlorophyta in the plant section. Is that accurate because I have looked and I have read some sources that say they are Protozoa.CycoMa (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- No, Chlorophyta are green algae, definitely not Protozoa. Just for information, who are "some sources"? Plantsurfer 18:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Also I disagree with the whole idea of mentioning weird methods of sexual reproduction being out of the scope of this article. Sure males stabbing females with their penises doesn’t deserve a paragraph, since there is already an article on that topic. But I do think at least one sentence is good enough as a mention.CycoMa (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Plantsurfer hey I noticed you put Chlorophyta in the plant section. Is that accurate because I have looked and I have read some sources that say they are Protozoa.CycoMa (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
On the sexual reproduction section
I do agree with y’all that giving a entire long paragraphs on sexual reproduction would be inappropriate for this article.
So on this article we should just mention the basic aspects, if there are some weird cases they should have just one or two sentences.
At times I think me and other editors at times get a little carried away with wanting to add tons of facts and paragraphs on a single topic for an article that touches on many subjects.CycoMa (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Re. sex sources: A friendly reminder
An edit that contains a quoted source is not, in itself, an unassailable rationale for including the edit in an article. The source itself must be reliable and stated in a comprehensible manner. Citing the source in an article must entail contextual relevancy. The cite itself need not be a direct quotation from the source material. Rigorous efforts should be made at emendations of the wording regarding the source material to ensure appropriate use in the article. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 05:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- I put quotes down if a certain sentence may be confusing. Like the sentence on intermediate gametes being lost would be confusing to an average reader so I thought the sources explained the topic a lot better.
- That is also the case for the sentence saying all the differences between the sexes stem from a difference in gametes.CycoMa (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- While we are on the topic of sources, my personal preference is to not have citations in the lead, given that lead topics are (or should be) more fully discussed and cited in the body of the article. see MOS:LEADCITE, where it outlines that this principle needs to be considered on a case by case basis and a consensus reached among editors. What say you all? Plantsurfer 11:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Plantsurfer I think you have a point, but it may necessary in some cases like if there is a dispute.CycoMa (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Plantsurfer, I hadn't known about MOS:LEADCITE, but I had otherwise advocated that very brand of common sense, contrary to the taste of too many other editors here. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 01:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Like the whole dispute about the first sentence we had a month ago. Until scientists come to a consensus on an exact definition of sex our current definition is based on combining sources.
- The closest consensus to there being a consensus on sex is that many biologists agree gametes are the fundamental differences between the sexes.CycoMa (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- you keep saying that, but it is really little more than a statement of the obvious. Plantsurfer 13:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Keep in mind that wasn’t common sense to me until recently. Actually much of the information in here wasn’t common sense to me until this year. But anyway my point is that there are some situations where sources may need to be in a lead.CycoMa (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Also sorry if I come off as repetitive on the things I say, I’m just trying my best to contribute to Wikipedia and making sure mainstream views are being represented fairly.CycoMa (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- I strongly recommend not removing the citations from the lead. This is not an entirely non-controversial subject (amongst people who are confused about biology and are being anthropocentric) and they prevent people from trying to place undue weight on fringe theories, as has happened in the past. This is in line with what WP:LEADCITE recommends in cases like this. Crossroads -talk- 04:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Crossroads well many of the claims presented in this article are clearly not controversial among mainstream biologists. (Although they may disagree on many things, such as the evolution of sexual reproduction) I haven’t found any mainstream biologists saying that dioecy doesn’t exist.
- Although the claim that humans are gonochoric may come off as controversial to you know who.
- So yeah you kind of have a point.CycoMa (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- @CycoMa:, it's not only about whether they are controversial among biologists; there's also the issue of whether they are controversial among editors. If removing the citations tends to result in more strife or edit-warring, or even just more discussion, then it's worth keeping them just to avoid that, even if the claims are non-controversial among biologists. Mathglot (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Plantsurfer:, I tend to be with you, i.e., I sometimes remove citations from the lead of an article (after checking that the material is adequately sourced in the body). However, I avoid doing that, for any article which is inherently a controversial topic, or is on the list of topics subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions. Since this fits that profile, I wouldn't be in favor of removing citations from the lead in this particular article. Mathglot (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Mathoglot the claim is mostly well sourced, there are like 6 sources that say that a majority of animals are gonochoric.CycoMa (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Not gonna lie there were a lot of things I had to remove from this article, that I honestly feel guilty for removing. But, I removed them because my logical side knew they were problematic.
- Like I had to remove this one book written by a transgender biologists, but I removed because I knew that it was criticized by over 40 scientists. I even removed a source from the further reading section because I knew the claims didn’t align with more reliable source.(Not to mention it clearly went against mainstream biology.)
- I guess that’s the hard part of being a Wikipedian, you have to know what sources are reliable and which ones aren’t.CycoMa (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping for @Mathglot, since it was misspelled above. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Sexual reproduction
The section on Sexual reproduction is a bit all over the place. I have already (unsuccessfully) pointed to the fact that paragraphs on isogamy/anisogamy appear both in Evolution and in Sexual reproduction. They need to be brought together as a single statement. Then in Animals the first sentence of the third paragraph is talking about oviparity without mentioning the term, while the third sentence in that paragraph appears to contradict it by referring to mammalian development in which nutrients are supplied directly by the mother. Oviparity and viviparity need to be clearly presented and clearly separated. Plantsurfer 10:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Plantsurfer, so far, my editing has been piecemeal-oriented to semantics. I've had only an inkling of the continuity issues as so many of the one-line observations seem disjointed. Why don't you have a go at bringing in some fluidity? I'll only assist as needed. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Plantsurfer
- That one paragraph on anisogamy/isogamy was about how anisogamy evolved, how it might evolve in the future, and how it’s viewed as the evolution of male and female.
- So I’m not sure that paragraph belongs in sexual reproduction.
- I agree with you on separating oviparity and viviparity.
- CycoMa (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Kent Dominic by the way be careful when fixing the grammar. I agree some language here and there has issues but, try your best to not change the meaning of the text.CycoMa (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- @CycoMa there are not one but two paragraphs on anisogamy/isogamy - that is the point of my edit that you reverted. One is in Evolution, one is in Sexual reproduction. It looks like repetition. I think the two should be brought together. Plantsurfer 17:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Kent Dominic by the way be careful when fixing the grammar. I agree some language here and there has issues but, try your best to not change the meaning of the text.CycoMa (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- @CycoMa, EVERY edit - by its very definition - changes the meaning of the text in some way. If you think a change fails to improve a given meaning, please bring it up for discussion here to let others weigh in. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 06:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Plantsurfer, I also share your concerns about this section, and would support some major changes. I would add that it is overlong; there are obvious, important connections between sexual reproduction and sex, but we should summarize as much as possible and refer to the main article. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- @FirefangledfeathersThanks for this. There is a lot wrong with this part of the article, but having been summarily reverted by CycoMa, and given his refusal to see my point, there is a risk that I might start an edit war, and I am reluctant to go there. The bit about anisogamy/isogamy in Evolution precedes the explanation of what anisogamy is in the subsequent section. That is clearly back to front. But changes to this now need the clear consensus of the active editors. Plantsurfer 09:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Plantsurfer I can understand your point, an average reader probably doesn’t know what anisogamy or isogamy are. But the reason I put those there is because sources like this and this have said the evolution of anisogamy is viewed as the evolution of male and female sexes, since this article about those it’s only logical to put it there.
- Maybe we could add a note to that paragraph say,”the article on anisogamy and isogamy explain what they are” or “the section on sexual reproduction explains what anisogamy and isogamy are.”
- Or we can explain what anisogamy and isogamy are in the lead.
- Or may we could write it like this.
- Anisogamy(gametes differing in size) most likely evolved from isogamy(gametes similar in size), but its evolution has left no fossil evidence.[11] The evolution of anisogamy is viewed as the origin of male and female sexes.[12]
- Which option seems best?CycoMa (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- However, I don’t want this article to be too repetitive on the same topics.
- Like in earlier versions of this article it was very unnecessary to have a overview section.CycoMa (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
________
- @CycoMa, You've tested the limits of my patience. Your recent "Don’t change the meaning Kent Dominic" and "Knock it off" edit summary violate both WP:SOAPBOX and WP:SUMMARYNO policies. Moreover, it's beyond temerity to WP:CLAIM, without rationale, a change of substantive meaning where none exists, and it's the height of bumptious incivility to presume any standing to tell another editor what to do or what not to do. Consider yourself warned: I don't intend to dignify such immaturity with any future replies. Instead, I'm going to refer any future lapses of judgment, illustrations of bad temperament, etc., to admin. If it's a case that you lack the language dexterity to express yourself in a more appropriate manner, consider remediation. You've surpassed my willingness to help you understand that the article represents collaborative effort relating to Wikipedia as a whole rather than a reflection of one person's cause. Expect no manner of direct communication from me going forward. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Kent Dominic Hear, hear! Plantsurfer 09:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- @CycoMa, You've tested the limits of my patience. Your recent "Don’t change the meaning Kent Dominic" and "Knock it off" edit summary violate both WP:SOAPBOX and WP:SUMMARYNO policies. Moreover, it's beyond temerity to WP:CLAIM, without rationale, a change of substantive meaning where none exists, and it's the height of bumptious incivility to presume any standing to tell another editor what to do or what not to do. Consider yourself warned: I don't intend to dignify such immaturity with any future replies. Instead, I'm going to refer any future lapses of judgment, illustrations of bad temperament, etc., to admin. If it's a case that you lack the language dexterity to express yourself in a more appropriate manner, consider remediation. You've surpassed my willingness to help you understand that the article represents collaborative effort relating to Wikipedia as a whole rather than a reflection of one person's cause. Expect no manner of direct communication from me going forward. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Plantsurfer I think you are missing the context of those two paragraphs. One paragraph is about the evolution of anisogamy, it’s evolution being viewed as the origin of the sexes. While the other paragraph is explaining what it is.
- I moved a paragraph from sex determination because it addressed the evolution and didn’t belong down there.
- There is another sentence in the sex differences section, the purpose for that sentence is state it is the main difference.CycoMa (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- But anyway I think you have a point the sexual reproduction section does need some work. There are things unorganized and unsourced statements.CycoMa (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Kent Dominic dude seriously did you even read what the sources are saying on the topic? In what way is what I’m doing soap boxing? Also did you even read my edit summary?CycoMa (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Kent Dominic this what I’m saying man with you changing the meaning, some of your changes change the entire meaning of what sources are saying on a topic without even trying to understand what they are saying.
- In order to fix grammar or spelling mistakes you first need to understand what something is talking about.CycoMa (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Removed sentence
Responding here to a question from CycoMa initially posted at my user talk page:
Hey I noticed you removed this sentence from sex. I was thinking about reverting your edit but I thought it would be a better idea to ask you why you removed it?CycoMa (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC) (reply)
In this edit, I removed a sentence saying Note, male and female are usually defined by reproductive strategies rather than physiological characteristics. I find it doesn't belong where it was, between a sentence describing the conventional definition of the sexes based on gametes and a sentence clarifying the special case of hermaphroditic species. It might belong in another section, where it should probably be rephrased to cover the source's statement that defining sex based on reproductive strategies would be more useful, not that it's usual. As is, the sentence contradicts other statements in our article that sex is primarily defined by gamete production, a physiological characteristic. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Firefangledfeathers I can understand why you would think it contradicts how male and female are defined but this is what the source says.
- In the source it says.
- ”The size of the gametes is the most direct means of differentiating between sexes. By definition, male gametes are smaller, and female gametes are larger (see Verma 2019). Individuals producing smaller gametes are defined as males, and individuals producing larger gametes are defined as female. Sex determination mechanisms are more stable among mammals and birds and far more variable among many marine taxa, with genes, environment, and epigenetics determining and reversing sex across numerous gonochoristic fish species (see Baroiller and D’Cotta 2016). However, it should be noted that male and female sex are more usefully defined by reproductive strategy, rather than by immutable physiological characteristics (Schärer 2017). In this way, males and females occupy distinct reproductive niches that reflect the combination of their asymmetrical gametes and results in a cascade of sex differ- ences, such as in morphology and behavior (see Eberhard 1996; Trivers 1972).”
- So their definition of male and female does align with the rest of the article.CycoMa (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for quoting and linking, so others can quickly catch up on the relevant content; I have already read it. I don't think "usually" is a good replacement for "more usefully" in this context and would insist on that being changed if we reintroduce the sentence. To emphasize part of my earlier point: as it was, the sentence was contradicting other statements in the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- I should make an obvious statement about this, things like labels and classifications are merely a human creation. Things in nature don’t have labels attached to them. So off course scientific classifications may not be 100% presided.CycoMa (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Kent Dominic dude chill out this whole situation happened because of miscommunication, it happens. Wikipedia is not a place for stuff like that, both you and I are clearly not understanding what we are trying to say. Yes I handled those disputes immaturely, that’s my mistake.CycoMa (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
A friendly suggestion
Given this article's high volume of regularly added and edited (and deleted and restored) material, editors might seriously consider vetting changes on this talk page before haphazardly posting them in the article. It's certain to save a load of time, effort, and needless back-and-forth. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 06:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hey can you stop reverting my edit at the intersex edit. All the sources literally say that’s what intersex is mate.CycoMa (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Can you explain how their edit goes against the source? Equivamp - talk 13:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Equivamp in what way does changing it to intersex characteristics fix it?CycoMa (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fix what? It's more concise. I know that in the past you've struggled with the idea of concision being used on source text, but that's what we're supposed to do here. --Equivamp - talk 14:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Equivamp, You're right - concision is all I was after. Confession: I wrongfully presumed the intersex article here was generic in the manner used in this article, but that's not the case; it's limited to human intersex. So, this article's link (both textually and via hypertext) to that intersex article was problematic, and my intention with the edit was doomed. I've since deleted the link and the verbiage that make the unwarranted connection. Without taking a position on what ensues, either the intersex article needs expansion to include other species or the Sex characteristics section here needs clarification to avoid conflation with the notion of "intersex" as characterized in the respective Wikipedia article. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 14:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fix what? It's more concise. I know that in the past you've struggled with the idea of concision being used on source text, but that's what we're supposed to do here. --Equivamp - talk 14:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Equivamp in what way does changing it to intersex characteristics fix it?CycoMa (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Equivamp okay but no source uses language like “intersex characteristics”, also in Kent’s edit summary he said this “ concision: remedied redundant verbiage (i.e. "inter-" means "both;" "sex" is defined in the lead)” He is doing original research by analyzing the words.
That goes against what the sources say on the matter. Intersex doesn’t mean they are both sexes, it basically means they have both sex characteristics.(The definition I’m using is the basic definition by the way.) Hermaphrodite means they are both male and female.
Intersex organisms aren’t hermaphrodites. Two sources literally say intersex applies to gonochoric species.
Language or grammar doesn’t or what certain parts in a word mean don’t always matter. I mean the country of Greenland implies it’s a green country (when it clearly isn’t).CycoMa (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry typos I was typing too fast.CycoMa (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
But anyway what source uses language like intersex characteristics?CycoMa (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- A search for "intersex characteristics" on Google scholar turns up 558 results for me, some referring to humans and some referring to other animals. But I'm not overly interested in quibbling over that phrasing with you. I see that it's been changed again - are you satisfied with the phrasing now? --Equivamp - talk 15:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Equivamp I’m happy with the current edit. Also I should state this, that paragraph is referring to the biological view on the subject. The thing you popped up are mostly from medical or sociological sources.
- Not saying they are wrong it’s just different fields of academia don’t always agree on the same subject. Especially with regards to this topic.(Trust me you would be surprised.)
- Kent Dominic by the article on intersex isn’t the best option. Have you read Wikipedia is not a reliable source. It may explain some things to you.CycoMa (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Kent Dominic let’s just say that intersex article is mainly about the political and sociological side of the topic.CycoMa (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well, considering that DSDs/intersex conditions are primarily a medical topic, I am hardly surprised. --Equivamp - talk 19:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
General notice to the 15 editors of Sex
Off-topic user conduct discussion
|
---|
Editors may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively. The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia. - WP:DE Everyone has a limited sphere of competence. For example, someone may be competent in [glossing copious amounts of literature about sex in sexually reproducing organisms] but incompetent in [consistent creation of semantically accurate and topically relevant syntax in encyclopedia style] ... Some otherwise competent people may lack the skills necessary to edit Wikipedia. Rather than labeling them as "incompetent" in the pejorative sense we should ease them out of the Wikipedia community as graciously as possible, with their dignity intact. - WP:COMPETENCE When all else fails: Sanctions such as blocks and bans are always considered a last resort where all other avenues of correcting problems have been tried and have failed. Before bringing an issue to the incidents noticeboard or another similar venue, you should have exhausted all reasonable attempts to communicate with the user and correct their behavior. Use their talk page, explain things to them, and demonstrate how to do things correctly. On rare occasions, however, after a pattern of behavior has been well established and a user shows they are unlikely to do things correctly, a block, topic ban, or full ban may be the only solutions that minimize disruption to the encyclopedia. - Ibid --Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
|
Behavioral differences in sex differences section
I am thinking about adding adding a behavioral differences in the sex difference section. But, not sure if it’s the best idea or not.CycoMa (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- A brief mention is probably warranted, but extended discussion is probably better suited for the Sexual dimorphism article or another. --Equivamp - talk 19:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- I was thinking that too, nothing too long maybe just about like 4 or 6 sentences.
- But, I am kind of struggling with which sources are ideal for a section like that.CycoMa (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- @CycoMa:, Agreeing with Equivamp, here. Since it's already dealt with in detail elsewhere, if you added something brief here, you could construct it as a summary of the more detailed article or section elsewhere. That would make this a parent section in summary style, with a {{Main}} (or {{Further}}) linke to the longer, more detailed content in the child article. Given that, you could take one or two of the most reliable, weighty sources from the child, and reuse them here. Keep it quite brief, though, and try to summarize just the main point of the child; anyone who's interested in more detail, can just click through the {{Main}} link. Mathglot (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Mathglot didn’t say it would be long. It will probably just be about maybe 10 or 6 sentences long.
- Also I’m thinking about mentioning it here since there are reliable sources touching on the topic.CycoMa (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- You could write the longer version first and then summarize it here, is what I think Mathglot is getting at. --Equivamp - talk 01:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Conclusory statements with "usually" and "all"
Each of this article's five mentions of "usually" are disturbing as a WP:WEASELWORD, for contextually varying reasons. I.e. "usually" is intrinsically ambiguous with meanings that can imply, commonly, generally, naturally, normally, ordinarily, and typically. Related terms include customarily, habitually, regularly, routinely, familiarly, conventionally, and traditionally.
Among those 13 synonyms, naturally, customarily, familiarly, conventionally, and traditionally are contextually at odds with the 5 mentions of "usually," but the remaining 8 synonyms are ripe candidates for substitution on a case-by-case analysis. E.g. "Animals are usually mobile and seek out a partner of the opposite sex for mating" becomes "Animals generally seek out a partner of the opposite sex for mating." The observation about mobility is contextually superfluous/off topic. Indeed the entire sentence bears consideration for deletion as as an off-topic comment about a sexual habit rather than "a trait that determines an individual's reproductive function, male or female," as established by the lead.
Eight of the article's nine mentions of "all" are disturbing as they categorically exclude alternative conclusions. E.g.:
- "All mammals (except Monotremes) are viviparous" is an overstatement regardless of whether it's an accurate reflection of any source. Neutral alternatives: "All knownmammals (except Monotremes) are viviparous" or "
All[M]ammals (except Monotremes) are always known to be viviparous." - "Many reptiles, including
allcrocodiles and most turtles, have temperature-dependent sex determination."
Speaking as a reader rather than as an editor, none of the article's sentences containing "usually" or "all" satisfies my standards for burden of proof notwithstanding whatever a given source alleges. I'm not champing at the bit to make the edits as indicated above, and I'd rather someone else take the initiative to accordingly clean up this troublesome aspect of the article. I didn't check the article for categorical statements of negation, but if there's a sentence like, "No egg cells are produced outside the ovaries," it warrants appropriate editing. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 02:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Sex: Ripe for deletion/movement
By hard-won consensus, the lead establishes this article's topic as "a trait that determines an individual's reproductive function, male or female, in animals and plants that propagate their species through sexual reproduction." The following items, glossed from the article, are compendium of content that is off-topic according to the lead:
- Evolution (the entire section); Main article: Evolution of sexual reproduction.
- Sexual reproduction (the entire section) except Isogamy and Anisogamy; Main article: Sexual reproduction.
- Animals (the entire section); Main article: Sexual reproduction in animals.
To reiterate: None of the above content topically comports with the lead. A brief mention of the content, with links to the relevant main articles, seems a reasonable way to restrict this article's text to its stated topic. The page currently stands at 77,493 bytes. One particular editor expressed an intention to expand the article to 100,000 bytes. Those added contributions might be better placed in the relevant collateral articles.
Any consensus on deletion/migration? --Kent Dominic·(talk) 02:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah you are referring to me, also I am very sorry how I have been acting.
- Also are you planning on deleting this article or deleting a certain part? I mean seriously what makes you think there is a consensus on this?CycoMa (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hey Crossroads what do you think?CycoMa (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)