Jump to content

Talk:Sex/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Vandalism found.......

I fully appreciate (and in fact support) the fact that Wikipedia is not censored. However, this hardly seems like an encyclopedic entry of any kind. I cannot revert this because the page is protected. Could the appropriate admin/user(s)/whoever please rectify this blatant vandalism? Thanks. Lewis512 (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have summarily removed the text from the article. (Trip Johnson (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Rewrite of article

This article is a mess, and I'd like to completely rewrite it. I suspect nobody is giving this page much attention, but if you'd like to help I've started working on a draft here. So far it's just a lead and an outline... Madeleine ✉ ✍ 04:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The draft is mostly complete now, I'll probably replace the article with it soon. It removes a lot of the anthropocentrism of the current article. The gender issues material has been reduced to a single sentence disambiguating gender from sex within the lead, as I thought most of this material was inappropriate to an article on biological sex. I understand that "sex" can mean many things, but this article starts by stating "This article is about biological sex. For alternate uses, such as sexual intercourse, see Sex (disambiguation)." and so I've taken it from there. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 00:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced the article now. A lot of stuff information has been discarded from the old article, although much of it arguable off topic, anthropocentric, or unreasonably detailed. Please bring up anything you think this new article is currently lacking. Thanks! Madeleine ✉ ✍ 23:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sex organs

Plants, animals, and fungi all have specialized structures developed for sex. Should this be another top level section, or should the information get integrated into the sexual reproduction section? Madeleine ✉ ✍ 15:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well... I added it as expansions to sexual reproduction. I guess I had answered my own question there. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 23:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Great work Madeleine!

Thanks for all this work, Madeleine. I think you've done the hard yards to take the article in the right direction -- human sexuality has its own article, biological sex redirects here. This wise decision was made long ago by others, but sexuality content keeps getting added here.

You've provided so much solid content covering a spectrum of species, that it should now be evident what this article is about.

Other contributors, please note. If you have contributions to make regarding human sexuality, they are welcome under the right topic heading -- sexuality. If it's about people, put it there. This entry is about our wild and wonderful fellow sexually reproducing species, not really about us.

I would add, though, human reproduction is a huge topic in itself, falling between the two entries mentioned. I believe some tidy-up of links and categorization in that topic area may be in order. In fact, I used one of your sources, Madeleine, to make this table, but I'm not sure where to put it. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about adding it to the reproductive system article? It would go under "Development of the reproductive system" I guess?
Does you think this article should have a top level section "Human sex determination and reproduction"? I think readers are probably expecting to find more information on this topic. It could go at the bottom, after providing the context that covers the entirety of life.
I've observed in learning more about the topic that there is a lot of convergent evolution in sex, it would be nice to cover it somehow. Asymmetric gametes have appeared at least twice (animals, plants), sex chromosomes have developed independently many times. I wonder about moving evolution to a top level section after sexual dimorphism and adding some material about this. I need to read more about the topic before I can do this myself though. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 14:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Perfect! I want to know more about the evolution of sex too. Actually, I'd love to read up on it myself, but I've got to control myself a bit atm (20,000 word deadline in three weeks, yikes!) Help me! Learn for me! Share with me!
I think the evolution of sex is the logical question behind this article. What is sex? It's something that kind of comes and goes over the top of this family tree of lifeforms. The specific cases of individual species is important data, and valuable in itself, but putting it all together is the real deal. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Anti-human article?

Article has very less or no info about humans. Is it an effort to clean up dirty things? Spot research wiki (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't ... it's a result of this article being the redirect for biological sex, and so this current version tries to cover all domains of life that have sex. As you can see above, I'me wondering if we should add a top level section for "Human sex determination and reproduction" because that is almost certainly an interest of visitors to this page, if you'd like to contribute please do! Note, however, that this article is about biological sex, you can go elsewhere for things like human sexuality and gender. -- Madeleine ✉ ✍ 11:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

there is a sexual intercourse link at the top of this page - it's clearly there ObamaGirlMachine (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It is WP:POV and speciesist to only focus on humans when so many organisms undertake this phenomenon. We are just one of the millions of species. We are biased towards ourselves enough as it is. GizzaDiscuss © 00:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
you are absolutely right i´ll add this text written in dog language: wolf wolf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antispeciest (talk • contribs) 13:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Animals - just plain wrong.

Hi all, I'm a little worried about the "Animals" section that begins: "Sexually reproducing animals spend their lives as diploid organisms, with the haploid stage reduced to single cell gametes." Someone has obviously forgotten about such organisms as some of the hymenopteran social insects, in which many individuals are haploid! I didn't want to delete the sentence outright, but couldn't think of an appropriate replacement. Suggestions? Esseh (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Man, you're like the person that got upset (was it you? :) ) when I wrote "DNA is the genetic material of living organisms." I didn't forget -- later I listed haplodiploid sex determination. Biology is a science fraught with exceptions, but to write an article for an outsider one must sometimes neglect mentioning exceptions when they are very small and only serve to confuse. IMO the appropriate thing to do in these situations is to simply insert a hedge word like "most" -- I didn't choose to use "most" here because really it is "almost all except for a very small exception", but I'll go ahead and add it. Try to avoid adding details that will distract from explaining the basic principles. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 13:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi again, Mad. Yup, I'm the guy ;-) I don't (believe it or not) try to add details that distract, but I still do get annoyed when, in trying to be "simple", things are just plain incorrect. The social insects are just one example - there are others. Also, the tone of the article seems to suggest that the only animals are vertebrate (esp. mammal), and the only plants are angiosperms. Nature's wonderful, and she knows that there's more to it than plain old missionary style! Good talking to ya again. Esseh (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It's true that there's a bias towards familiar organisms (which I hope is reasonable), but there is a picture of flies having sex and there's pictures of pine cones. Bird sex and sex determination is covered. There's a lot about bugs. The plant section also includes gymnosperms (I love telling people pine cones are female sex organs) and it was hard to find much info on plant sex determination (not much research on it?), although I tried and mentioned it where I could. To some extent I'm limited by how much I can learn about various kingdoms of life and how able I am to make broad statements about them. If you have more information you think would be good to include, please go ahead and add it or put it here and I can figure out how to integrate it. I love learning more about these things, I can't pretend I know everything. :-) Madeleine ✉ ✍ 19:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Mad, don't get me wrong - overall, the article looks pretty good. A bit more on alternation of generations in plants with the gradual decline in size of the gametophyte might go a long way toward helping with the plants, for example. "Pollen" is, in fact, not just the germ cell, but a two-cell gametophyte, if memory serves. (And none of us knows everything... sigh..) Esseh (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

you guyz, common every edit needs not to be perfect.

Opening sentence

The article's opening sentence is as follows:

In biology, sex is a process of combining and mixing genetic traits, often resulting in the specialization of organisms into male and female reproductive roles.

The sentence makes no sense. A "process" of "combining and mixing genetic traits" yields "specialization of organisms into... reproductive roles"? When does this "process" take place? Who or what is involved in it? Is it connected to these "reproductive roles" in any way other than as their cause? Does it happen to be, by any chance, the very reproduction with which, we might guess, reproductive roles have something to do?

I am not informed about the types of sexual reproduction, but I suggest the following:

Sex is an organism’s biological status as one or the other of its species’ two types necessary for reproduction. In sexually-reproducing species, most individual organisms are identifiable as one of the said types, termed male and female.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Postscript: As I have said, I am not informed about the types of sexual reproduction. One thing I was naturally concerned about as I crafted the above recommendation was the phrase "two types necessary for reproduction." A quick Google search has just led me to a webpage that contains the following:

Eulimnadia texana is an extremely unusual species in having three sexes (at least genetically).... Females reproduce by one of two means: self-fertilization and/or sex with males. Males cannot self and females cannot fertilize one another.

Maybe there are yet other deviations from what I suppose is the usual condition of sexually-reproducing species; but on the basis of that information alone, I revise my recommendation as follows:

Sex is an organism’s biological status as one or the other of its species’ two types necessary for, or at least associated with, reproduction. In species that reproduce sexually, either exclusively or in part, most individual organisms are identifiable as forms of the said types, termed male and female.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To elaborate:

You are walking through a park. You see a man playing with a dog that appears to belong to him. You ask the man, "What is your dog’s sex?" The man replies, "Male."
If we credit the article’s opening sentence, your question meant this:
"What is your dog’s process of combining and mixing genetic traits, often resulting in the specialization of organisms into male and female reproductive roles?"
Even if we regard that as intelligible — as we may not — "male" makes no sense as a response to it.
By my recommendation, on the other hand, the question meant the following:
"What is your dog’s biological status as one or the other of its species' two types necessary for reproduction?"
Either "male" or "female" is an appropriate response to that question.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And to state it further, via material from the article itself:

The article’s second paragraph begins as follows:
"An organism's sex is defined by the gametes it produces...."
If the article’s opening sentence is credited, that means this:
"An organism’s process of combining and mixing genetic traits, often resulting in the specialization of organisms into male and female reproductive roles, is defined by the gametes it produces."
That makes no sense. By my recommendation, the sentence means:
"An organism’s biological status as one or the other of its species’ two types necessary for, or at least associated with, reproduction is defined by the gametes it produces."
That makes sense.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Because I am not satisfied with my recommendation’s treatment of hermaphrodites (insofar as I understand those entities), I revise it again:

Sex is an organism’s biological status as one of its species’ two types necessary for, or at least associated with, reproduction. In most species that reproduce sexually, either exclusively or in part, nearly all individuals are forms of one or the other of the types, termed male and female. Some individuals, called hermaphrodites, may be said to be of both types or to be a combination of the types.

The statement about "most species" and "nearly all individuals" is a guess. Maybe hermaphrodites or similar things are not as unusual as I suppose.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Because my use of "reproduce sexually" feels circular, I modify my recommendation:

Sex is an organism’s biological status as one of its species’ two types necessary for, or at least associated with, reproduction. In most species that reproduce, either exclusively or in part, through interaction of such types — that is, sexually — nearly all individuals are forms of one type or the other, male or female. Some individuals, called hermaphrodites, may be said to be of both types or to be a combination of the types.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Sexual reproduction does not require different types, and there are some species which have no evidence for mating types. Your proposals imply that different types are necessary, and this is not the case.
When I wrote this, I was thinking that there are two different definitions for the word "sex" that I had to address. The first sentence was intended to connect, but avoid conflating, these: sex as "the act of sexual reproduction" and sex as "male and female". It looks like you're approaching this article assuming that the definition should only be the latter?
As a quick fix, what do you thinking about simply changing the wording into this? "...often resulting in the specialization of organisms into male and female types." Madeleine ✉ ✍ 08:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
PS - or maybe "...male and female sexes."? Madeleine ✉ ✍ 08:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The article’s opening sentence is presently this:

In biology, sex is a process of combining and mixing genetic traits, often resulting in the specialization of organisms into male and female types.

I personally can make no sense of that. I take it that the "process" is the thing that supposedly "results" in the specialization; so, to start, the word "resulting" seems as if it should come after "process," not "traits." More importantly: What is any of it supposed to mean? Sex is a "process of combining and mixing genetic traits"? So, if, for instance, one person’s eye color is green and another’s eye color is brown, they combine those "genetic traits" – how? Do they squash their eyeballs together -- or are we talking about a form of reproduction? If the latter, then how does "sex" differ from "sexual reproduction," which is a separate Wikipedia entry, linked in the article's very next sentence:

Sexual reproduction involves combining specialized cells (gametes) to form offspring that inherit traits from both parents.

And what are "parents," which have just been introduced without explanation? And how does any of this "result" in "specialization of organisms into male and female types"? I could go on, but why don't we start with those questions. JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Momentarily putting aside the question of the other Wikipedia article ("sexual reproduction"), and momentarily accepting your statement that sexual reproduction need not involve male and female entities, I offer the following:

Sex is a form of biological reproduction in which genetic material from two separate organisms of the same species, or closely-related species, is combined in the creation of a new organism. In many cases, the two organisms will be of different types known as "sexes" and termed male and female. If the organisms succeed in reproducing, they are "parents" of the new being.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 09:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggested change

After taking a quick look at the Wikipedia articles about isogamy, mating-type regions, and one or two other things, I’ve thought you might want to change the name of this article to "Sex (Biological status)." The article could begin with a brief treatment of sexual reproduction (with a "Main article" link thereto) and a brief treatment of isogamy and mating types (with "Main article" links) and then treat "male and female" – i.e., male and female organisms, male and female components of flowering plants, etc. The opening could be something like what I suggested above:

Sex is the biological status of an organism, or some component thereof, as one of two distinct forms whose interaction is necessary for, or at least associated with, the organism’s reproduction. Some species whose reproduction is termed "sexual" do not involve such forms at all; but among many that do, every individual is ordinarily of one form or the other, male or female. In other cases, individuals are combinations of the two or include components of both types.

Right now, the problems of which I’ve been speaking are reflected at the Sex (disambiguation) page, where this article is linked in the introductory sentence rather than being listed with other articles. (If you’ll go to the page, you’ll see what I mean.) I think the disambiguation page’s opening sentence should be without a link and should say, in usual Wikipedia style: "Sex, from Latin sexus, perhaps akin to secare, to divide, may refer to." This article should simply be listed there as "Sex (Biological status)." Again – I’m not really informed on the subject; but right now, this article’s focus, as well as its relationship to the sexual reproduction article, does not seem to me to be at all clear.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Opting for article to be merged with Sexual Intercourse (Implement the section on sexual intercourse as sexual reproduction in human beings INSIDE Biological Sex)

I don't really see the difference between biological sex and sexual intercourse? I mean its disputed that reproduction in other organisms is completely different from human beings, Not disputed, sorry, A fact. Still I think the articles should be merged, just to show that SEX itself is a form of reproduction that is carried out by most living organisms, just to be clear, they carry them out differently. My dispute lies in 'Biological Sex'. We are biologically human aren't we? Someone please consider this seriously —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexRoxUrSox (talk • contribs) 02:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you read the preceding section, you'll see that someone else thinks sex is "male and female" and not "sexual intercourse". This article attempts to combine the two subjects.
Setting that aside, can you please tell me how human sex significantly differs from other biological organisms covered here? In what aspects is it insufficiently covered? Human sex sits within a wide variety of biological methods for sexual reproduction and sex determination, it is not a unique outlier. (Unless you're talking about social aspects, and I'm not too concerned about covering social aspects in an article about "biological sex".) But if you bring up what aspects you think are so different, maybe we can address them in the article.
The sexual intercourse page has a lot of problems and I don't want to take it on as a project (although I'd be happy to give constructive criticism). The definition it uses is restricted to mammals (most birds do not have penises), and it doesn't even try to talk about plants and fungi. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 01:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Intersex

You should take intersex people into account. There are not only male and female children resulting of sex! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.227.240.129 (talk) 06:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Intersex condition is mentioned in the sex determination section. Do you think it needs to be mentioned in the lead? It is a rare condition; I'm concerned introduced trivia distracting the reader from the general mechanisms. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 01:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


Well 'intersexual's' denaturalise the binary classification of sex. All we do by not mentioning them where we're mentioning males and females in this context is helping pre-port the idea that the classifications of sex in their current form are binary. Whilst the term inter-sexual is iffy, because these humans surely have a sex, and are not 'between sexes', all we go to show is that they are being overlooked by not mentioning them. The article the five sexes ( http://frank.mtsu.edu/~phollowa/5sexes.html )sheds some light on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.77.239 (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


"Sometimes an organism's development is intermediate between male and female, a condition called intersex. Sometimes intersex individuals are called "hermaphrodite"; but, unlike biological hermaphrodites, intersex individuals are unusual cases and are not typically fertile in both male and female aspects." Is it really correct to claim that they are 'betwee male and female". Surely they're a sex in themselves, and shouldn't be looked at as between two sexes?

See footnote 24 in [1]. Many additional potential supporting sources are available to support this terminology. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Humans

This should talk more about humans, not animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.43.185 (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Human sex is (incorectly) dealt with under gender. We can point out that "gender" as a eupemism for "sex" is nothing other than Victorian genteelism, but it's a losing battle. This is the democracy of language: the correct and distinct meanings of "sex" and "gender" have gone the way of the correct meaning of the phrase "begging the question" not because the literate have become a minority (we always were), but because the subliterate many have been given voice. I, for one, welcome our new illiterate overlords. its thr wrld nw.78.86.128.70 (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of DNA

The spelling should be corrected (it's deoxyribonucleic acid, not dioxy-).Sflyte120 (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Should be stated in general/mostly

The part that says "Sex differences in humans include a larger size and more body hair in men; women have breasts, wider hips, and a higher body fat percentage." should start with either "generally" or "usually" since there are cases of men with breasts "Gynecomastia" and females with facial hair. Not all humans conform to these specifications. 71.112.208.13 (talk) 05:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Bwrs (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Topics from 2009

14-Jan-2008: The article for biological sex, titled as "Sex", seems to be a distraction from what most people are hunting. In 2008, although 19,000 readers, per day, viewed article "Sex", nearly 16,600 viewed article "Sexual intercourse" (the top hat-note link). It appears that people are dragged by the word "sex" to the biology article, then proceed to the wikilink "~intercourse". The German Wikipedia, has linked title "Sex" bluntly to the intercourse topic, without so much biological introduction. I think that the English Wikipedia should, more neutrally, link title "Sex" to the short article "Sex (disambiguation)", rather than make any attempt to drag a person to any other long article about some interpretation about sex. The word "sex" implies too many aspects to just presume which article most people should be reading.

Including the data-size (in bytes) of the images, the article about biological sex is nearly 74x times larger than the short article "Sex (disambiguation)" (which has had no images or bottom-navboxes). At this point, I'm thinking the biological article should be moved to "Sex (biology)", then create a redirect title as "Sex" linking to "Sex (disambiguation)". Afterward, compare readership data (during a few months) to see how many people really wanted to read "Biological sex", among the 19,000 readers sent, each day, to that article as the default.

If the move causes unforseen problems, then simply redirect "Sex" to the new name "Sex (biology)" and compare reader interest. Help to make Wikipedia what people really want to read. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Penis and Vagina picture

This needs to be added to give the article credability Without it its like have an article on the space shuittle without a pic of the spave shuttle --Meiamme (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

First Image - Sex = Sperm + Egg?

The first image, of a sperm and egg cell fusion, states that sex involves this fusion. However, a lot of the time, it doesn't. I mean, it does involve it some times, so it's not a wrong statement, it just seems to mean like advertising a vacuum cleaner, and promoting it's wheels as the main feature, if you follow the metaphor? That sentence just doesn't define sex, I suppose, is what I'm saying. Thoughts? 69.17.156.15 (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right. The statement is categorically, undeniably false. The sperm and egg cell fusion are a result of sex (and nature's intention for sex), but they are not the encyclopedic definition of sex. I'll adjust the wording of the caption to correct the inaccuracy without altering it's intended meaning.-K10wnsta (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I really like that pic (wish we could get a hi-res), but it just doesn't seem fitting as the opening image for the article. It certainly belongs in the article, just not there. A proper image would somehow summarize the more general aspect of sex, not just one potential result of it (even if it's nature's intended one).
That being said, after mulling it over for a few minutes, I can't seem to determine what might be a proper image to headline the article...maybe I could keyword search 'sex' at Google Images?
Hmmm...somehow, I have a feeling that would be a fruitless endeavor. Well, maybe if we brainstorm it for a while, we can come up with some ideas for what kinds of images would be fitting for an encyclopedic entry on the subject. Whatever it might be, having a high-quality, high-resolution, headlining image for the core articles is a standard we really need to start adhering to as editors of an encyclopedia. :-) -K10wnsta (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Parasite?

The male isn't a parasite if it is providing the female with an ability to reproduce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.129.190 (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Anatomy Photo

From a scientific perspective this photo is absurd. The woman in the photo is not even standing in an anatomical position! This photo needs to be deleted when a proper successor is found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swipeghost (talk • contribs) 23:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Anatomy Picture The woman in this picture as stated, is not standing in a proper anatomical position. The woman is also quite overweight making her unpleasant to look at, and is not ideal for a model anatomy picture. Request for a change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.12.31 (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The anatomy photo is quite ridiculous. I agree that the woman is not standing in an anatomical position - this is problematic as it doesn't give a clear picture of the female anatomy. Furthermore she is indeed slightly overweight and thus does not give a representative picture of the normal female anatomy (which she is supposed to display). Moreover she has a shaven pubic area - she has no pubic hair! This is a minority lifestyle choice chosen by some women and thus does not display "the norm" or "the natural" female anatomy. The picture should be changed 82.43.162.109 (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't see a problem in the fact that she is shaved (so is the guy by the way). Thats a very common practice nowadays and I'd say that more women under 30 are shaved or waxed than bushy women. You might as well complain that they cut there fingernails. --91.9.240.159 (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

SEX is good for body —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.13.127.169 (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of anatomy photo from this article

I happened to be involved in the creation of this anatomy photo, and I think it shouldn't be exhibited in this article. I think it is generally a well composed and encyclopedic picture, and that this article also is very encyclopedic and very well written, but, still, it's presence in the Sex-article somehow makes me concerned. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't see your reasons.--Lamilli (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to concur, the image is merely anatomy, non-specific to the reproductive systems. I don't see the text that it is supposed to illustrate. But the picture itself is absolutely useful on the right page(s), I just don't think this one is it. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly. Some of the labels in the image initially made me think it was some kind of 'vandalism in jest' inclusion in this article (although it would certainly be useful in other articles). There's just got to be a more appropriate image. -K10wnsta (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment on the article! I didn't put that picture there; this article understandably accumulates injections from people who want this to be more related to sexual intercourse. Sorry, I haven't been active in Wikipedia for a while and so wasn't around to watch this page, but it looks like it hasn't acquired any new caretaker so I guess I'm still it. Thanks for creating the support in the talk page for removing it! Madeleine ✉ ✍ 18:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Human section removed

Humans

The biology of human sexuality examines the influence of biological factors, such as organic and neurological response,[1] heredity, hormones, and sexual dysfunction;[2] it examines the basic functions of reproduction and the physical means to carry out sexual intercourse. The biological perspective helps to analyze the factors, and ultimately aids in understanding them and using them to deal with sexual problems.

I removed the above because I couldn't figure out what it meant or was contributing to a general article about sex as a biological phenomenon. Feel free to try adding it back if you understand it -- but please add more context about what it's trying to say. Alternatively, I think this general sort of material could be included in a more general section about how sex is involved in animal social behavior (including bonobos, dolphins, etc). Madeleine ✉ ✍ 01:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality

Why is there no section on homosexuality here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.14.172 (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

I just reverted a significant rewrite of the lead paragraph to the article (that changed its focus/meaning), I'd like issues brought up and discussed here first please. Thanks. -- Madeleine ✉ ✍ 01:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What sex is

  • OK, well first of all, this article is not about the process called "sex" (which is described under "sexual reproduction"); therefore, it should not begin with "sex is a process..." The term "sex" here refers to a label or way of categorizing organisms (male or female). Wolfdog (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    • However, I would like to mention that the new edits to "sex" (the edits after my own) now do incorporate the fact that "sex" is also a countable noun and a label. At least we agree on that much. Wolfdog (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There were no edits after your own, that was simply a reversion to the version before your edits. The fact that you didn't notice that it mentioned this before replacing it with your own material doesn't speak well to the thoughtfulness of your edits.

Sex has multiple meanings, including (a) the process of genetic recombination and (b) the division of organisms into "male" and "female". I chose to begin the first sentence with the first definition and then follow with the second because this division arises in context of the first. That's why the sentence was that way. Both definitions were covered in this original lead sentence. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 15:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Well, that's not very pleasant or fair of you, though I do feel like an idiot. My apologies for not realizing that those original edits read that (with both definitions), though I still intend to devote the article to your "b" defintion of "sex" rather than the "a" definition, since there already is an article called "sexual reproduction" (there is also already even an article on "sexual intercourse") and I believe that this here article should refer to the label.
The phrase "to have sex" is an expression that exactly means "to engage in sexual intercourse." Since you attack my "thoughtfulness," I will argue that both Merriam-Webster Online and Dictionary.com give one of these definitions of "sex" as synonymous with "sexual intercourse." Since there is already an article on sexual intercourse, sexual intercourse should not have to be explained in this article, as well. I know you will fight me, but I'm trying to be organizationally practical. We can have a "You may be looking for..." on this article and on the "sexual intercourse" article write "Sexual intercourse, commonly referred as sex," but we do not need two or more articles on the same concept. Wolfdog (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Just because something covered elsewhere is also within the scope of this article is not justification for removing that information from this article. Even if it were redundant, this is not cause for removal of information, an article should cover everything that falls within its scope, not "everything that isn't already covered elsewhere". Your argument would be more defensible if you argued for the need for additional information, but not if you're arguing to remove "redundant information". Where would the Genetics article be if you decided to remove everything already covered in DNA and Evolution?
That said, the sexual intercourse article is not redundant with this one. The scope of it is clearly human-oriented and, while seems to touch upon animal behavior, it does not cover plants and other eukaryotes. It also very clearly does not attempt to describe the biology and how it involves genetic recombination. To put it bluntly, that article is about f***ing, not about the biological process of sex.
I didn't mean to be rude, but I've put a lot of thought into this article. This article, among other things, is a donation of my time and expertise to Wikipedia. -- Madeleine ✉ ✍ 17:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of HTML5 "aside"

Many books and now an HTML5 tag use "aside". This is used when you want to mention something that is related to the text, but does not fit in with the general direction of the text. Back in 2008 (not sure if it is still an issue), there was discussion about Animals section being wrong, because one species of animals reproduce differently. Putting that info into an "aside" (box of text slightly highlighted, maybe?) would allow the info to be added to the article without distracting from the flow of the article. Maybe even a "Did you know ...". This is what a lot of children's encylopedias, Discovery Magazine (children's), etc. do to handle this "problem". Zzmonty (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Last paragraph of "Animal" section - unclear antecedent and improper use of term

Just as a start, in the sentence: "Because of their motility, animal sexual behavior can involve coercive sex." The antecendent of "their" is unclear. When I first read the sentence, I thought that the "motility" referred back to spermatozoa in the preceding paragraph. But no, it appears that the antecedent of "their" is presumably "animals." If that is the case, then the sentence should read "Because of animals' motility, animal sexual behavior can involve coercive sex." (the repetition of "animals" would be justified by the need to keep the hyperlink intact).

Having said that, one can't help wondering about the term "coercive sex." First, in an article entitled "Sex," the use of "sex" here in a much more restrictive and even contradictory sense is inappropriate (it should be replaced by "copulation"). Further, the term "coercive sex" appears to me to be entirely human-centric. From the point of view of animals taken as a group, "sex" (copulation) is neither coercive nor non-coercive. Coercion may be involved in the act of copulation, but so is consent. Both, or neither, are inherent in the act - except, possibly, in the case of humans. The inclusion of these two sentences suggests some sort of political intent - an apology for "coercive sex." Does anyone agree with me on this?

In any case, the two points made earlier regarding the unclear antecedent and the improper use of the term "sex" in "coercive sex" stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lestrad (talk • contribs) 05:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

pictures

someone put some porn on this page! enough of the diagrams! 67.161.29.50 (talk) 01:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a more helpful concern: when I imagine an image for sex, sperm 'n egg isn't the iconic image. Perhaps this is a relatively-modern and human-centered view, but they do not seem so essential to the process. I feel like a naturalist image of some sort of human or animal having sex would not be tremendously helpful, though. I wonder without suggesting a better alternative if there's not a better image we could use?69.94.192.147 (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I think porn is the last thing the page needs.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
This article discuss biological concern. Absolutely no need of porn. Pictures are quite okay. Tanvir 03:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Plus,kids could be on this site as for education purposes, and walla!! a picture quite frightening to youngsters, porn is definately not needed on this site-Force101

Topics from 2010

Sex article should not be about sexual reproduction

Usually 'sex' refers to sexual intercourse so sex should redirect there. I doubt anybody would refer to sexual reproduction of plants, for example, as 'sex'. This article should be renamed 'sexual reproduction'--MathFacts (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  • No, this is not about sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction is already a separate article. I also dispute your "usually" clause. "Sex" can commonly refer to gender or reproduction or even sexuality (the phrase "too much sex on TV" rarely refers to actual intercourse, for example). However, the topic of this page really is the fundamental scientific definition of the term, and, unlike those other definitions, there really isn't a widely used alternative term, so I think the current setup with a disambiguation page and links to the most common other meanings is a pretty reasonable solution. Clicking one extra link is unlikely to kill anyone. p.s. I do refer to sexual reproduction of plants as "sex", so nyah! :) Xtifr tälk 02:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Siddarth7679, 28 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}


Siddarth7679 (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 20:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture

If think we should have a picture of a couple getting it on. I'm willing to post a picture from my own private collection —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.252.236 (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

questions

'how do you have sex. like, what has to happen for someone to have "sexual intecource"?' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.59.228.35 (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in article

I was reading "Witty's blog", specifically the article about the Indianapolis Children's Museum, and was amused at the statement that if you google "sex", the first hit is Wikipedia's article. Just out of curiosity, I googled "sex", and sure enough, there was Wikipedia right at the top of the list. Being the insatiable reader I am, I was just looking over the article when I noticed something that made me say, "Huh?" It was the following statement:

"Chromosomes are passed on from one parent to another in this process."

This statement is found near the beginning of the article, and although I'm not a geneticist, I'm pretty sure this is inaccurate. Parents pass their chromosomes along to their children, not to each other.

Although I have been a fan of Wikipedia for many years, I have never even attempted to get into editing or anything of the sort. I have merely been an end-user. So as not to screw anything up, but at the same time maintain the integrity of your information, I thought I would just pass my comment along, and perhaps someone with more experience can fix this.

I just read some of the "Talk Page Guidelines", and I'm not sure I complied exactly, and I hope this doesn't get lost, but I am out of time to spend on this. My apologies if there is a problem with the way I did this.

Now let me see if I can get the signature correct. I THINK I understood the instructions.

Cinnamon taffy (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Cinnamon taffy. I have tried to clarify the wording; it was confusing. These are the changes I made. I hope you enjoy helping to make more improvements to Wikipedia, or indeed making them yourself. --Nigelj (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Added material under "Evolution"

I added material under Evolution to reflect the other main view on the evolution of sex, as indicated in the articles Evolution of sexual reproduction and in Meiosis in the subsection "Origin and function of meiosis." Bernstein0275 (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Typo in Evolution

'While the evolution of sex itself dates to the eukaryote stage, the origin of chromosmoal sex determination is younger. ' Should be chromosomal 99.22.65.218 (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sexuality lock

I think there's needed a lock in Wikipedia to keep children away from sexuality (The most inporant is the pictures,that show sex or sexual organs uncensored).I recomend 3 different safety types: 1.Lock for children:Wikipedia users MUST add their birth dates and users under 18 can't read pages about sexuality and can't read or watch sexual content on non-sex pages too [The sexuality pages for children can't be watchable (These links will be a red link and the search engine will can't find these articles for children)].And when the young user want to make an another user (That has an age over 18) to view just pages about sexuality,all of his/her users will be blocked for never ending time and unable for registration.

2.Child versions:These versions are limited versions for people under 18 when viewing pages about sexuality [These pages will only show information that safe for children and pictures that safe for children too (Pictures about animal sexuality and pictures pictures about child sex organs,that maked from childrens 14 or under.The pictures about real human sex,erotica and products from the sex indrusty will not showed)]IMPORANT:The age can't be changed after the first registration on an IP anddress.

3.No images about sex:Pictures about sex can't uploaded to Commons and Wikipedia (except animal sex).That users that uploades sex images,will be blocked for never ending time. I extremely recommend one of these options. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.18.224 (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. The idea that children should not be allowed to know about sex is not mainstream in my culture. We tend to consider sex education to be a good thing. --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from 97.102.133.8, 3 July 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

GAY! 97.102.133.8 (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Jnorton7558 (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

that it is nice

we have forgotten to mention that it's a very enjoyable endeavor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.106.232 (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse may be the article you are looking for. --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

One more time, please Wikipedia is NOT the place to advertising a website, even if that website is under the Creative Common banner. So your arguing that Creative Commons wants get traffic in order to get donations is NOT a valid reason.

Moreover, as I already explained in the talk page of User:John_Torn, the mentioned link has the following issues: Wikipedia do not allow:

  1. Links mainly intended to promote a website,
  2. Links to any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds.
  3. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked.(6 of the 11 links shown are from Wikipedia sites)
  4. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject (all the other links that are not 4 of the 5 remaining links)

The link you posted has all this issues. Therefore should not be in the article. So I'll remove the link one more time. --Dia^ (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


One more time, Wikipedia is NOT the place to put forward any agenda and your argument that "The CC - is not one of others, but is more important. It is the Greatest Emperor, " has absolute no value at all. Your request for a protection has been refused and I asked for a third opinion. Threatening me with absurd notice on my talk page will not help you in the least. I'd like to point out, that you only two edits (a part from you user page) has been the insertion of 2 external links to Creative Commons and threatening me. --Dia^ (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm a Third Opinion Wikipedian. I've removed your request from the Third Opinion project and referred it to the External Links Noticeboard where it will hopefully get more and better attention than from us generalists at 3O. If you do not receive satisfaction there, please bring it back to 3O or to the Dispute Resolution noticeboard. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The wise decision on this issue has already been found long time ago (see here). No of any spam. The alien made the rollback only one time at his domain, in spite of the important argument (but not exists a war of edits). He is not best man: his talk page has been deleted for previous serious violations here. No of spam in our case absolutely. Everything has already been explained on this topic here. I repeat. For best results, is necessary to use several language sections of Wikipedia (this course), but only one section is used. And any clever human understands this. I think so. Thus, I ask cancel all sanctions in this relation (because they are not fair). I ask on behalf of all people from CC involved in this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Malacka (talk • contribs) 13:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC) . I'm sorry ! My signature: John Malacka (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Sex → Sexual intercourse – "Sex" is only a noun when it relates to the form of a species (ie male or female), it isn't a verb~(see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex ). Move it to sexual intercourse, redirect "sex" to gender 91.182.110.199 (talk) 08:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit request on 25 April 2012

please say that sex is fun but you should not experience sex with your mother father brother sisters or cousins. aunts and uncles are finr Beachbum4 (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, please read the article - your suggestion is a bit off-topic. Fun, yes, but wrong place. Vsmith (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Topics 2013

Species of lede photo

??? 76.180.168.166 (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Is sex a property of having varieties?

To say that 'Sex is a biological property of organisms having male and female varieties' is not the same as saying that 'In biology, sexual reproduction is a process of combining and mixing genetic traits, often resulting in the specialization of organisms into a male or female variety, each known as a sex. In one case, sex is a property of having varieties, and in the other each variety is known as a sex. There are no grounds for saying the first when the other is obviously true. If the only reason is some obscure Wikipedia guideline about making the article title the subject of the first sentence, then I say that we need to stick to the actual definition of what a sex is, rather then making stuff up to meet style guidelines. I have therefore reverted these edits. (Sorry, but I clicked the wrong link, and didn't give myself a chance to add an edit summary pointing here) --Nigelj (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking pretty much the same thing when I saw Thanatosimii's edits. But because I'm busy with other matters at the moment and didn't feel like discussing any of those changes at that time, I decided that I would tackle that matter later, and see if another editor would revert Thanatosimii's edits in the meantime. I'm clearly fine with your revert. I saw that you also removed "In biology"; I'm fine with that as well. Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't completely happy with what we had ended up with, so I have carried on, and had my own attempt at improving, and especially simplifying the grammar of, the opening sentences. I have tried to keep the meaning very close to what was there previously. Looking at it now, I wonder if we are just another push away from getting 'sex' to be the subject of that first sentence, so that everyone should be happy. I'll leave it for now, to see if everyone's happy so far. --Nigelj (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
My problem with Thanatosimii's changes was that they didn't explain how organisms become a sex; that's what I feel is the problem with your more recent changes.[2][3]. Yes, the second and third sentences explain, but they don't connect that to the term sex, and I feel that the first sentence should explain how organisms become a sex. Flyer22 (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
As I wrote it, sex was to be understood as a property belonging belonging to the varieties, which is clunky, as I admitted, but not contradictory to the position that the varieties are sexes. I still believe that title-as-subject is good stylistic policy, but if the previous suggestion doesn't satisfy, how about something more like "A Sex is a variety of a species differentiated on the basis of reproductive function" or something like that? Thanatosimii (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I felt we were trying to squeeze too much into that first sentence, making it difficult to parse. It started off talking about combining and mixing, and then the second sentence was all about that, so I moved all the combining stuff into one place - the second sentence. Following the multiple-use definition cited in Collins in the first sentence, and to link the two to the word in question, I wonder if the second sentence could be changed to "Sex can also refer to sexual intercourse, in which genetic traits are combined and mixed: in sexual reproduction, specialized cells known as gametes combine to form offspring that inherit traits from each parent." --Nigelj (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ Ellen Ross, Rayna Rapp, "Sex and Society: A Research Note from Social History and Anthropology", Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Jan., 1981), pp. 51-72.
  2. ^ (Rathus et al. 2005, pp. 18)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sex/Archive_4&oldid=1137181844"