This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Original Research?
In the section on fungi, the article states "However, following studies on Phycomyces blakesleeanus there may be some reconsideration of this." This not only appears to be predicting a future development but also to be original research. Do we do precog here? Plantsurfer 11:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Okay to make things easier I’m gonna quote what the source says.
- From these observations, it appears that the two sexes of P. blakesleeanus are specialized in their functions. There has been a long debate over the terms “mating type” or “sex” for fungi, with the argument being made that mating type is more suitable because few differences have been observed between mating types. However, these studies in P.blakesleeanus indicate that this argument would be worth reconsidering.
- CycoMa (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don’t know this sounds the kind of language a primary source would use.CycoMa (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Actually I checked and found a version of this published to PubMed right here and it’s labeled as a review. And according to WP:SECONDARY it doesn’t fit the definition of a primary source.CycoMa (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the evolution section
Even tho the sources do say the evolution of anisogany is synonymous to the evolution of male and female. It's probably not a good idea to go too in-depth on the evolution of anisogamy because the article on anisogamy already goes in depth on it.CycoMa (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Not sure about the removal of the evolution of sexual reproduction
I’m not too sure about the removal of sexual reproduction. I do understand the reason for its removal but, the issue is that it is kind of important to this topic.
Also I do think I have read something about the evolution of sexual reproduction being a big factor to the evolution of sex.(I’ll have to look through the sources to confirm this.)
If I see a reliable source directly saying the evolution of sexual reproduction is important to the evolution of sex I’ll put it back in. But for now it should be left out.CycoMa (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
About Olivia Judson
Yeah regarding Olivia Judson the things she has said in her book don’t contradict the statements cited in this article. I understand that pop-sci isn’t ideal but, it isn’t a problem if it doesn’t contradict what reliable sources say on the matter.
I had to remove sources from this article becoming they contradicted more reliable sources on the matter. But, this isn’t the case for Olivia.CycoMa (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- I may be looking at a different edition, but what I see on pgs 10-12 doesn't verify females in most species being less loyal than males. Could you provide a quote? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Are you looking at the 2014 version?
- Can you quote what you are seeing?CycoMa (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- No, I am looking at a 2002 version. There's nothing for me to quote! That's kind of my point. I would paraphrase the points I'm seeing as saying that there's a consensus amount of evidence for female promiscuity, but nothing that compares males and females and suggests that females are less loyal. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Honestly I written that down in my own words, the source said something like how females cheat on their spouses.CycoMa (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Not seeing anything about "spouses", and we should probably avoid using that term. I agree with Crossroads that we also shouldn't use "loyal". We probably shouldn't be using this source at all. I am not anti-pop-sci for basic claims, but 20-year-old pop-sci is probably not the best we have to offer. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Honestly I written that down in my own words, the source said something like how females cheat on their spouses.CycoMa (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- No, I am looking at a 2002 version. There's nothing for me to quote! That's kind of my point. I would paraphrase the points I'm seeing as saying that there's a consensus amount of evidence for female promiscuity, but nothing that compares males and females and suggests that females are less loyal. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Breeding systems
In this book on page 1 it mentions how distinctions between sexual systems like trioecy, dioecy, androdrioecy and other sexual systems. It mentions how distinctions between these sexual systems aren’t always clear. The book also goes more in depth on sexual systems and I believe some of these facts should be mentioned here.CycoMa (talk) 05:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Sex differences repetition
With a recent addition by CycoMa the beginning of §Sex differences now has three sentences in a row making roughly the same point:
- Biologists agree that...
- It has even been said that...
- It is also considered to be...
The sentences refer to sex being primarily determined by gamete type as being "fundamental", explaining "all the differences", and "the universal difference". CycoMa and others, can we agree that it's best to consolidate those sentences? Would it be better to remove one or two? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- maybe I should remove the mention of it being the first sex difference. I mean come on the evolution section makes it’s pretty obvious on that notion.CycoMa (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- I’ll admit I went a little overboard on that.CycoMa (talk) 04:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- I’m also gonna remove unnecessary details that are obvious or already addressed in the article. Like the article explained that anisogamy is the difference in gamete size.CycoMa (talk) 04:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
No universal difference
Crossroads honestly I had no issue with you removing that. I’ll admit it was kind of undue weight, three reliable sources cited in this article have argued there is a universal difference.
I tried looking for more sources on the claim of whether or not there is no universal difference. And that was the only source.CycoMa (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Biological sex in humans
A couple of months ago, @CycoMa blanked the long-standing definition of biological sex in humans. It said:
In humans, biological sex is determined by five factors present at birth: the presence or absence of a Y chromosome (which alone determines the individual's genetic sex), the type of gonads, the sex hormones, the internal reproductive anatomy (such as the uterus in females), and the external genitalia.[1][2]
The stated reason appears to be dissatisfaction with the sources, which were (1) a university textbook, and (2) a source added by CycoMa.
There are, of course many other sources that make the same basic point with minor variations in the wording:
- While we tend to think of sex as a binary (either male or female) determined by looking at a baby's genitals, the evidence shows that sex is determined by multiple biological factors including chromosomes, hormones, gonads and secondary sex characteristics, as well as external genitalia. ... It is important to remember that sex and gender are two different things: a child or young person's biological sex may be different from their gender identity.[1]
- Biologists have never been under the illusion that genes and chromosomes are all there is to the biology of sex. Today, as in Morgan's time, researchers acknowledge that human biological “sex” is not diagnosed by any single factor, but is the result of a choreography of genes, hormones, gonads, genitals, and secondary sex characters. Today, academic sexologists typically distinguish between chromosomal sex, gonadal sex, hormonal sex, genital sex, and sexual identity.[2]
- Sex is defined biologically.... While an individuals karotype is used to classify DSDs, the karotype does not define one's sex. Phenotypical anatomic findings (e.g., ovary/testis, clitoris/glans penis, labial majora/scrotum, labia minora/penile shaft, etc.) more properly define one's sex...[3]
- BIOLOGICAL SEX Sex determination exists on a spectrum, with genitals, chromosomes, gonads, and hormones all playing a role.[4]
- biological sex as determined by chromosomes, hormones, gonads and the formations of the internal and external genitals.[5]
- Biological sex involves characteristics of chromosomes, hormones, gonads, genitalia, and internal reproductive organs.[6]
- physiological markers of biological sex (chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive structures, external genitalia, hormones, and secondary sex characteristics)[7]
- Physiological maleness or femaleness, or biological sex, is indicated by the sex chromosomes, hormonal balance, and genital anatomy.
NB that the first in the list is a medical school textbook published by Elsevier, so there can't really be any claims that "medical" or "biological" or "MEDRS" sources don't define this term.
Biological sex redirects here, so this page needs a definition of how biological sex is determined in humans, and specifically to differentiate biological sex from the narrower concept of chromosomal sex. Genes kick things off, but in birds and mammals, the hormone-producing gonads turn out to be more important in the end. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing look I removed that book because this article is a biology article. None of the individuals who written that book are biologists and do they ever study biology.
- This article is a biology only article, which means this article is biological sources only. Barely any of the sources you added are biology sources.
- This article is not gonna be some place for activists to spread their propaganda on.CycoMa (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- To help you understand the issues at hand here, is what the articles are saying.
- Regarding claims like this
- BIOLOGICAL SEX Sex determination exists on a spectrum, with genitals, chromosomes, gonads, and hormones all playing a role.
- that source is talking about sex determination. There is a difference between sex determination and sex itself.
- this is not a reliable source for an article like this. It's not medical or biological. Not to mention it's from a independent publishing company.
- This source is not reliable for an article like this. It's an article on sociology.
- This source is not reliable for an article like this, it's sociology.
- In general medical and sociological sources are excluded from this article. Sure there are sociobiologists and medical professionals who are both doctors and biologists. But, none of the sources provided have knowledge in the field of biology.CycoMa (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- And even if we consider the idea of medical sources being including. A majority of the sources you presented are not medical sources either.CycoMa (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Which well-attended talk page discussion established the consensus that this is a "biology only article"? Or is there a wider consensus-established policy that designates articles such as this one "biology only"? Absent such a well-established consensus, I feel safe in assuming that this article, like all Wikipedia articles, should summarize with appropriate weight what the reliable sources say about the subject. You might argue against the reliability of the sources, or suggest that they represent such a minority viewpoint that inclusion is unwarranted, but I can't agree that only biology sources are welcome. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Firefangledfeathers look at the wiki projects this article is linked to.
- Not to mention this article is talking about sex across various species. It makes no sense to go in depth on humans regarding the topic.
- Unless humans are some special case treasured by God, sure let's give five paragraphs on sex in humans.CycoMa (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thankfully, linking WikiProjects at the article talk page does not limit the variety of reliable sources we can rely upon. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Sources are only reliable depending on the context of the article. The sources she presented don't for the context of this article.
- None of the individuals she cited have knowledge regarding the biology of sex or sexual reproduction.CycoMa (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- I won't stand in the way of you questioning the reliability of the sources, perhaps by questioning the expertise of the authors, but I can't support discounting a medical textbook because its authors aren't biologists. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- This article isn't a medical article and it never was a medical article. So medical sources don't fit the context of the article. Please understand you don't have to much knowledge in biology to be a doctor.
- Also much of the individuals she cited are sociologists. This article is taking about biological sex which means we need sources that know about the biological side of the topic. You wouldn’t cite a technician for an article on history would you?
- Like I said either it’s possible to be both a biologist and sociologist or be both a doctor and a biologist.CycoMa (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- I have no strong desire to convince you that your viewpoint is wrong. I hope that WhatamIdoing and others will take this as a note that I am likely to support the inclusion of content sourced to WP:MEDRS. If others have reasons of policy or consensus to state that this is a biology-only article, I would be happy to hear them. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers, I agree with you. I certainly have never seen any significant discussions that declared the subject to be "biology only". I have seen this single editor make such declarations, but I haven't seen anyone else agree with him. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing didn’t you say that this article is about biological sex? If you aware that this article about biological sex, why haven’t you presented any biological sources, do you honestly think sociology sources are appropriate.CycoMa (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- I have never said that only sources from the academic field of biology should be accepted in this article. I support this article maintaining the Sex and gender distinction, and being about sex rather than gender, but that's not the same thing as requiring only biology textbooks and biology journals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing didn’t you say that this article is about biological sex? If you aware that this article about biological sex, why haven’t you presented any biological sources, do you honestly think sociology sources are appropriate.CycoMa (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Please understand the whole WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The sources WhatamIdoing just don’t fit the context of this article. It’s that simple, end of argument.CycoMa (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC) Like it amazes me y’all aren’t understanding what I am getting out here. You are aware this article is about biological sex. But think sociological sources are appropriate for an article like this.CycoMa (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- If the article "is about biological sex", then where is the definition of "biological sex" in this article?
- That's really what I'm asking for. It really ought to contain a definition/explanation of the differences between each of these terms:
- I'd prefer that this be presented in human context, because that's the context for most readers and most incoming links. But I'm really just looking for the article to contain the definitions. I don't really care what sources get used (as long as they're reliable). I don't really care what the definitions are (as long as they're verifiable and DUE). I just want people who click on these links and end up at this page to be able to figure out what these terms mean. "It's that simple, end of argument." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing it already gives a definition of sex in the lead.
- I'd prefer that this be presented in human context, because that's the context for most readers and most incoming links. no we shouldn’t, did you even pay attention to what I said, this article is about sex across various species. Humans aren’t even special anyway, from a evolutionary standpoint we are merely just primates.
- I don't really care what sources get used (as long as they're reliable). I don't really care what the definitions are (as long as they're verifiable and DUE).
- Did you read the context matters I shown you, reliability is about context, I’m surprised you don’t understand why the sources you provided aren’t reliable.CycoMa (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, let's talk about CONTEXTMATTERS, since you seem to be interested in it. Here's what it says:
- The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.
- Let's take it point by point:
- Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.
- Notice that it says that the source has to be compared to the statement being made, and to make sure that it's appropriate for the content of that specific statement – not whether it's appropriate for the article.
- In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.
- Med school textbooks are considered some of the most fact-checked, legally-analyzed, and writing-scrutinized of all sources that get cited on Wikipedia, so that's obviously okay.
- Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible.
- It's not information provided in passing, so we're clear there, too. It's definitely related to the principal topic of the publication. NB "the publication", not "the Wikipedia article". This means that if you want to write a sentence about the definition of biological sex in humans, then you get a source that talks about biological sex, and not one that mostly talks about a politician, or a non-profit organization, or a consumer gadget. This is a medical school textbook talking about how to diagnose situations related to biological sex, so we're clear on that point, too.
- Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.
- This means that you don't make stuff up, or stretch a few points, or SYNTH it up from a few other things, and then pretend it's in the cited source. Since I've provided you with direct quotations, we're clear on that point, too.
- Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.
- So: Yes, I know what CONTEXTMATTERS means. Maybe now you do, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Look you clearly don’t understand what I’m trying to get at here. Medical professionals are not experts in biology and neither are sociologists.
- Seriously it feels like I’m repeating myself here.
- You said that this article is about biological sex, yet you present sources that aren’t even biology text books.
- Look a medical text book may be okay for a class in medicine, but it isn’t for biology.CycoMa (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Like WhatamIdoing answer me this question, this article is about biological sex? Am I right on that?
- If you want articles for anatomical sex or chromosomal sex. Make them, but that isn’t appropriate here. Because some species don’t even have sex chromosomes or genetic sex determination.CycoMa (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- ^ Knox D, Schacht C (10 October 2011). Choices in Relationships: An Introduction to Marriage and the Family (11th ed.). Cengage Learning. pp. 64–66. ISBN 978-1-111-83322-0. Archived from the original on 25 September 2015. Retrieved 2 July 2015.
- ^ Raveenthiran V (2017). "Neonatal Sex Assignment in Disorders of Sex Development: A Philosophical Introspection". Journal of Neonatal Surgery. 6 (3): 58. doi:10.21699/jns.v6i3.604. PMC 5593477. PMID 28920018.