Talk:Sex/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Adding fact that sex is a spectrum

As far as I am aware, general science is already acknowledging the fact that sex is indeed a spectrum, thus not just "male and female varieties" (and is also still upholding the outdated binary concept of sex). I wonder why nothing of this is mentioned at all in the first section at the very start of the page. I would even say following quote is wrong:

"Organisms of many species are specialized into male and female varieties, each known as a sex."

It would be more fair to say something like this: The biological sex of many organisms is on a spectrum which is often distributed in extremes that we call male or female. In rare cases, however, intersexuality can occur on the spectrum. --AloisIrlmaier (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

That may go a little too far, since this is part of an introductory segment that needs to be simple and clear. Any nuance and details should normally be added in additional sections and/or articles. However, something certainly needs to happen, as someone I know online has made me aware of the fact that certain phrasings are currently misused by transphobic trolls. This goes especially for the phrasing "The gametes produced by an organism define its sex: males produce small gametes [...] while females produce large gametes..." This implies (or can be misunderstood to mean) that an organism's sex is basically binary, whereas we nowadays know better. The source for this phrase seems to be Purves, however, nowhere in this textbook have I been able to find that particular definition. So, to be a little more clear, I propose we change this sentence to something like this:

By convention, sex is divided into male and female depending on the type of gametes produced by an organism: Small and highly motile gametes (e.g. spermatozoa) are normally designated as 'male', while large and less motile gametes (ova or egg cells) as 'female'. By extension, an organism producing either of each type of gamete is normally designated accordingly, and nominally 'female' organisms generally receive 'male' gametes during conception. However, there are many instances where this is less clear-cut as e.g. in isogamous organisms, hermaphroditic animals or non-binary humans. 

Is that better? Amphioxys (talk) 09:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I've integrated a slightly different phrasing of the above into the article, and added some other phrases, explaining more clearly that sex determination is complex and generally forms a bimodal spectrum. As it stands, the first sentence of this article is locked and should not be altered unless there is a new consensus following more discussion. I should underline that 'male' and 'female' sex are the fundamental sexual varieties that, nevertheless, create the spectrum of sex expression in individual organisms, including humans. I hope it becomes clear from the new phrasings that the division into male/female is by convention and for convenience. We tend to regard motile, proactive gametes as 'male' and stationary, receptive gametes as 'female', although these are no Platonic ideals. There are organisms that are isogamous, but for those "sex" is not relevant. With anisogamy, either one type of gametes is mostly proactive and the other one is mostly passive, hence the twofold distinction; There is no spectrum of gametes in that sense. However, for individuals, "sex" is determined by a number of factors: Chromosomes, individual genes, hormones, cells, timing, environment etc. and this is what creates the non-binary spectrum of sex expression. I hope that clears things up. Amphioxys (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I reverted this because the lead, per WP:Lead, is meant to summarize the article, not go into extensive detail. I also reverted because this is a biological/anatomy article and not a gender article; so non-binary gender identity is outside the scope of this article. That is, unless a "Society and culture" section is created and it talks about the societal/political issues. In a recent Village pump discussion, editors discussed not lending undue weight to gender identity in anatomy articles and inappropriately inserting such material into those articles. We shouldn't use Wikipedia to try to fight transphobia. There are always going to be people who assert that trans women aren't women because they are XY, and that trans men aren't men because they are XX (regardless that chromosome variation exists among transgender people).

As for AloisIrlmaier's statement about the lead sentence, the lead is the way it is after this extensive 2018 discussion. It's also following what the sources state. What reliable, academic sources define sex as "many organisms [being] on a spectrum which is often distributed in extremes that we call male or female."? Furthermore, the sexes are divided into male and female varieties. AloisIrlmaier mentions "In rare cases, however, intersexuality can occur on the spectrum." Well, "rare" is the keyword. And as is clear from the Intersex article, intersex people are also divided into male and female varieties. We also already mention intersex people in the lead. We also mention the hermaphrodite aspect in the lead. We also mention "Fungi may also have more complex allelic mating systems, with sexes not accurately described as male, female, or hermaphroditic." in the lead. So the lead does what it's supposed to do without giving undue weight to certain aspects. Also, intersex is typically reserved for humans (as is clear by the Intersex article). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, a non-binary gender identity is not about sex determination (meaning the sex-determination system/the topic of physical sexual differentiation in humans); so stating "because an individual's sex-determination is dependent on many factors other than chromosomal sex, humans may also be intersex or non-binary" is off with regard to the non-binary mention. And the source that was used for that material doesn't use such wording either. That stated, I do see that sex determination is a disambiguation page. So what sense was "sex determination" being used? Whatever the case, the usual meaning of sex determination is clear by the Sex-determination system article. And we shouldn't use WP:Scare quotes or things that resemble them. And stating "which is presumably the primitive condition" is WP:Editorializing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Flyer is correct. First, the lead needs to be a summary of the article without excessive detail. Second, Wikipedia follows reliable sources and introduced wording such as "Conventionally, designation of either male or female sex depends on..." sounds too much like righting great wrongs rather than the fact of how sex is defined by sources. Johnuniq (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Flyer's right on this. The lead's job is just to summarize the rest of the article in simple outline; it's not there to make mighty social or political points. As for the article, its job is to state the reliably-sourced facts simply, plainly, and neutrally. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I fully understand the point that the lead should be clear and concise, and I agree we should avoid over-complicating definitions. I also apologize if I may have been conflating terms. On the other hand, completely reverting a carefully worded edit supported by credible sources is perhaps a bit heavy-handed, unless the idea is to discuss the merits of any new formulations first, before trying to integrate it in the article. My contention is that some of the present wordings give rise to confusion and mis-use all to easily and thus lend undue weight to a science-denialist position, in contrast with a well-established scientific state of affairs. I will give this some more thought and get back. Amphioxys (talk) 11:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Weighing in here as author of some of the modified content and as a someone that now identifies as non-binary and on HRT (🎉).

1. I think it is correct to modify the first sentence in the lead to soften it. I think "In general," would be good. To me, "conventionally" has a subtext of referring to conventions as questionable things – I think best to avoid misreading any sense that questions are being raised about physiological truths. But...

2. Yes, the article has been about sex-as-gender, and it avoided gender-as-social-construct. But biologically, sex-as-gender also refers to a constellation of physiological traits associated with a particular gamete-producing individual. The second paragraph seems to be a start on this, and might be enriched. Intersex is not a phenomenon limited to humans (despite the focus of that WP article). But in humans, "intersex" doesn't typically refer to intersex physiology by choice (c.f. yours truly), so I think it's worth including the word "non-binary" alongside "intersex" for that reason, i.e. not as an intent to expand to gender-as-social-construct but as a linguistic issue due to the limited use of "intersex".

Specifically, to respond to Flyer22 Reborn: "because an individual's sex-determination is dependent on many factors other than chromosomal sex, humans may also be intersex or non-binary" is off with regard to the non-binary mention – I personally consider myself to now be physiologically intersex, but that word isn't used to refer to people like me who do so actively, not congenitally.

3. I think the expansion to the third paragraph would be better made in a second paragraph that enriches the observation that sex-as-gender goes beyond gametes to recognize the other physiological aspects.

4. Actually, I think going into sex determination systems (third paragraph) does not belong in the lead, if we're dissecting lead content! When I gave the page an overhaul in 2008 and added that content, I put it in a "Genetics" section.

5. In contrast, the lead doesn't cover sex-as-a-behavior, because the article is generally missing it. I think this is partly mea culpa: the article should do more here, and I think I was too shy/young to feel confident writing much about that in 2008. This was a point of contention in the discussion Flyer22 Reborn linked, but I don't think the article needs to be moved...

5. Really, I think the whole thing deserves an overhaul. In the coming year, I would like to improve this article and submit it for peer review via the WikiJournal of Science, where I recently joined the editorial board (and a thank you to Chiswick Chap for supporting my application!). I appreciate how challenging it is to span the many facets this article might cover, but it gets a lot of pageviews & I'd like to see it get FA status. Amphioxys, User:Flyer22 Reborn and others, please let me know if you're interested in being coauthors.

-- Mad Price Ball ✉ ✍ 20:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I really appreciate the input by Mad Price Ball here. To clarify: Although my attention to this article was peaked by an example of online misuse of certain phrasings, I'm not here for "righting great wrongs", as some suggested. I just wanted to get to the bottom of certain misunderstandings and the role of wikipedia in either mitigating or furthering these. As I learned about the current scientific consensus on sex & gender I realized the article is not quite communicating this clearly enough. Since this is a very popular article, editors should be open to incremental improvements, as is normal practice here. Dismissal of this because "people will always be discriminating non-binary people anyway" is a bit of a cop-out and begs the question. There's no valid reason for not trying to improve a sensitive topic, if need be. As people are becoming more educated on sex/gender, they're starting to perceive that the Wikipedia article no longer reflects the facts they learned elsewhere. The response by AloisIrlmaier clearly illustrates this. It may indeed be time for an overhaul!

I will try to respond to Mad Price Ball points first and add some of my own:

1. Gametes define sex? I'm fine with adding "generally". The current phrasing is just too adamant and upon reflection, it's really the wrong way around: "The gametes produced by an organism define its sex". But this isn't really how it works, is it? And I was unable to find this particular phrasing in Purves anyway. In reality, of course, it's People who define sex, and they do this normally/generally on the basis of the type of gametes, because of tradition/convention, whatever you want to call it. Male/female sex has no intrinsic meaning other than that and do not represent Platonic ideals. There isn't even a direct connection between analogous sexes of distantly related species. It's just a modus operandi of reproduction that natural selection tends to result in. So, no: Gametes don't define sex. People do. That was my point.

2. Sex/Gender dichotomy This is a very important point that was apparently steamrolled here by the assumed sex/gender dichotomy. The implicit assumption here is that "sex is biological" and "gender is cultural". However, a very important scientific milestone that I referred to for my edits, makes no such distinction and groups everything from "hermaphroditism" to "gender dysphoria" under the same umbrella of DSDs. Moreover, this knowledge has already long surfaced on popular-scientific media too as per my reference to the article on Scientific American. I'm aware this is dealt with in other articles, but many people will not often read beyond the lead of the main article, so it's important to communicate this complexity by doing it justice in the earliest sentences. This also why I mentioned "non-binary" side-by-side with "intersex", as Mad Price Ball duly noted.

3. Sex-as-gender to 2nd paragraph I agree.

4. Sex-determination not in lead I provisionally agree.

5. Article overhaul If it isn't abundantly clear already, I agree the article needs an overhaul to make it up-to-date to current scientific understandings as these are becoming more and more generally known among the public. I feel that developments on this area, and public knowledge of the complexity of sex and gender are moving very fast at the moment. I'm willing to lend a helping hand to Mad Price Ball invitation, so please remind me from time to time, if you need my input.

6. Sex as a spectrum Flyer22 Reborn asked for "reliable, academic sources" for the description of sex as a bimodal spectrum and "factors other than chromosomal sex". This is highly peculiar, since I actually provided two such sources in my edit.. Especially the Scientific American article features a graphic that clearly lists all the factors other than chromosomes, namely Genes, Hormones, Organs and Puberty, which is apparently overlooked. A lot of my first-hand knowledge also comes from a series of tweets by biology Professor Rebecca Helm explaining how complex and intertwined sex and gender are, which is reflected in the SciAm graphic. It is somewhat troubling that my edit seems to have been reverted without due diligent reading of what I wrote and what my sources state.

7. Isogamy as the primitive condition I put this sentence in without bothering to provide a source in first instance, because my focus was elsewhere. For me, with my background in Evolutionary Biology, it just seemed a given to me and an interesting tid-bit to mention. In any case, this is also very clearly stated on the wiki article on Isogamy: "It appears that isogamy was the first stage of sexual reproduction." I feel that this is just uneccessary nitpicking and I would appreciate a more constructive attitude.

I hope this clarifies matter and I especially hope we can have a fruitful further dialogue. Amphioxys (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I stand by what Johnuniq, Chiswick Chap and I stated above on the matter. We should not use the "Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders" source or a similar source to guide our editing of this article. This is obviously not the Intersex article. And in the case of primary sources, we should ideally try to avoid them per WP:MEDRS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. That some sources define an aspect broadly does not mean we should. Per what I stated above, the Scientific American source was not used appropriately. Furthermore, it falls under WP:MEDPOP, which tells us, in part, "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality, costs, and risks versus benefits, and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care. Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results. They tend to overemphasize the certainty of any result, for instance, presenting a new and experimental treatment as 'the cure' for a disease or an every-day substance as 'the cause' of a disease. Newspapers and magazines may also publish articles about scientific results before those results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal or reproduced by other experimenters. Such articles may be based uncritically on a press release, which themselves promote research with uncertain relevance to human health and do not acknowledge important limitations, even when issued by an academic medical center. [...] Popular science magazines such as 'New Scientist' and 'Scientific American' are not peer reviewed, but sometimes feature articles that explain medical subjects in plain English. As the quality of press coverage of medicine ranges from excellent to irresponsible, use common sense, and see how well the source fits the verifiability policy and general reliable sources guidelines." Unless there are secondary or tertiary sources supporting something Scientific American states and the material is WP:Due, I see no reason to focus on Scientific American. I see no reason to focus on Scientific American in this case at all.

Yes, it's important to keep this article focused on sex and not gender (a distinction which exists, no matter that there are people who disagree with it). It's important for reasons noted in the aforementioned Village pump discussion and because of all the biological articles that link to this one as a reference to sex and not gender. Otherwise, we might as well combine the Sex and Gender articles and delete the Sex and gender distinction article. I see no need for an article overhaul. The reason the article doesn't cover "sex-as-a-behavior", except for when referring to sexual reproduction or mating, is because we already have the Sexual reproduction, Mating, Sexual behavior, etc. articles. As mentioned above, the scope of this article was extensively discussed; I feel the same way about it now that I felt about it in 2018. And to be clear, I did not state that "intersex is a phenomenon limited to humans." I stated, "intersex is typically reserved for humans (as is clear by the Intersex article)." I was referring to the word/category. And this is clear by the intersex literature; it is mainly about humans. As for dismissal, what I have dismissed -- rather objected to -- is using this article for activism. WP:Activism is clear, and so is that recent Village pump discussion. I also obviously object to giving WP:Undue weight to certain sources, misusing them, engaging in editorializing or WP:Synthesis, and speaking of new understandings of sex without providing sources that truly support what is being stated. I'm not copping out of anything. I'm following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. For example, yes, per WP:Lead, mention of sex determination systems belongs in the lead; it's a very significant aspect of the topic (obviously) and we have a whole "Sex determination" section in the article. Amphioxys's edit was reverted with due diligence. I saw what was there and I reverted per my first comment above, which explains why I reverted. Johnuniq and Chiswick Chap agreed with my reasoning. I was editing with a constructive attitude. I see nothing left to discuss on this matter.

On a side note: I prefer not to be pinged to this talk page since this article is already on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, I didn't ask for reliable, academic sources "for the description of sex as a bimodal spectrum" and "factors other than chromosomal sex." I asked, "What reliable, academic sources define sex as 'many organisms [being] on a spectrum which is often distributed in extremes that we call male or female.'?" Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "sex as [...] a spectrum [...] distributed in extremes that we call male or female" is the exact meaning of "sex as a bimodal spectrum". The "extremes" are what constitutes the "bimodality". Amphioxys (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Unless there exists a reliable source that specifically defines sex as "many organisms [being] on a spectrum which is often distributed in extremes that we call male or female", it's WP:Original research. I do not see any sources for that statement, and I do not see any quality sources speaking of the bimodal spectrum of sex; I see blogs (with some like Scientific American and Psychology Today being more quality blogs than other blogs), Slate, Twitter, and Reddit. And I've looked on Google Books and Google Scholar as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, none of the sources used for the current article use the lead phrase "The gametes produced by an organism define its sex" either. So isn't that a double standard then? It could be retorted that 'that' is just a different phrasing of how the concept is described by the sources, but I could say the exact same thing about the use of the term "bimodal". If you cannot see how to differently phrased statements can mean the same, even though they use different words, then how can we exchange thoughts expediently on this matter at all? Amphioxys (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Eh? The two sources used for the lead sentence are used for "Organisms of many species are specialized into male and female varieties, each known as a sex." And the second of those sources is used for the following sentence in the lead: "Individual organisms which produce both male and female gametes are termed hermaphroditic." Those sources are not used for the "The gametes produced by an organism define its sex" piece. But, yes, I can look for sources for that statement. And I don't mean ones like this 2014 "The Metaphysics of Sex ...in a Changing World!" source that clearly copied Wikipedia. But I don't mind it being removed. As for double standards? Something in the article being unsourced does not mean that more unsourced material should be added. It certainly doesn't mean that inaccurate material should be added. As for your "bimodal" argument, you don't seem to understand our WP:Original research policy. And as for stating, "If [I] cannot see how t[w]o differently phrased statements can mean the same, even though they use different words, then how can we exchange thoughts expediently on this matter at all?", don't condescend to me. This isn't about rewording things. This is about there flat out not being a source that defines sex as "many organisms on a spectrum which is often distributed in extremes that we call male or female."

No, you can't use a source on the "bimodal" notion of sex to add that definition unless the source explicitly supports it or clearly supports. WP:Synthesis is meant to stop interpretations like the one you are going on about with regard "many organisms on a spectrum which is often distributed in extremes that we call male or female." And regardless of the word often being included, the wording also makes it seem like "male" and "female" are extreme cases in the sense that what's in between is more so the norm. But that's not case. Although readers already know this, the lead should be clear. And, above, you began your first comment by commenting, "That may go a little too far, since this is part of an introductory segment that needs to be simple and clear." Furthermore, I already stated, "I do not see any quality sources speaking of the bimodal spectrum of sex." I've looked through the literature. I do not think that you have access to literature that I don't have access to. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I think we're all trying to act in good faith. The article is neither GA nor FA status, and I think that's reason to give it some attention. I suppose I take Amphioxys's reference of Scientific American as a reference for what content should be considered. The topic as currently covered in the lead dives straight into chromosomes without much context. Mad Price Ball ✉ ✍ 21:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Since this is a very complex and intertwined question, let's leave any talk of "major overhaul" be for the moment and deal with each of the different issues insularly. I'm not sure why a certain Village pump discussion is continually being brought up, since that has no bearing here, as that is about gender-neutral language. My bone of contention here, and let me state this very clearly, is that several key definitions and phrases are factually incorrect inasmuch that they actually do not reflect scientific consensus on the issue. I fully understand, and there really was no need to point out to me, that neither primary sources nor popular scientific articles or even the opinions of singular scientific experts are in themselves valid references. I would hope we could keep an eye on the bigger picture here, instead of focusing on technicalities. It should be obvious that I only brought these up to give an indication that the scientific consensus has moved on in the meantime. Of course, I'm more than willing to dig deeper and find more compelling resources, but I'm rather put off by the fact that my reference to the statement by the LWPES Consensus Group is already dismissed off-hand, since this clearly is a secondary source and even has the word "consensus" in its very title! I would furthermore like to point out that the current definitions are based on a run-of-the-mill, general dictionary; not even a medical one! But as I wrote, I'm going to have to deal with each issues separately and cease any further bickering in this particular thread. I will do some more research and tackle with each of the major issues, as I perceive these, under separate headers. Regards, Amphioxys (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I initially brought up the Village pump discussion because of the gender (non-binary) addition and mention of it in this thread. "Non-binary" does not redirect to an article about the biology of sex; it redirects to an article about gender identity. And the Village pump discussion concerns gender identity as well. I also brought it up because it is an example of the community saying no to activism and not wanting to prioritize gender over sex when it should not be prioritized and therefore confuse readers with regard to the topics at hand. Even if not prioritizing, we do not want to confuse readers. That is why I've pointed to that discussion more than once on this talk page. I want to be consistently clear that I am against that type of editing at this article. I am against you adding things like "Conventionally", "nominally 'female' organisms generally receive 'male'" (notice the WP:Scare quotes), "which is presumably the primitive condition", or "because an individual's sex-determination is dependent on many factors other than chromosomal sex, humans may also be intersex or non-binary"...when "non-binary" is a gender identity.

The "Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders" source was dismissed because of what I stated in my "04:01, 4 January 2020" above post. That source, which is about intersex conditions, should not be used to guide our editing of this article. This is obviously not the Intersex article. You keep speaking of inaccuracy and scientific consensus. The "Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders" source does not extend to the topic of sex as a whole, obviously. I also do not see that it supports your arguments. And like I just stated above, "I do not see any quality sources speaking of the bimodal spectrum of sex; I see blogs (with some like Scientific American and Psychology Today being more quality blogs than other blogs), Slate, Twitter, and Reddit. And I've looked on Google Books and Google Scholar as well." On Wikipedia, we judge scientific consensus based on WP:Due weight. If quality sources are not speaking on what these low-quality or poor-quality sources are speaking on, then it's hard to argue "scientific consensus has changed." And this is especially the case when those sources are speaking of "sex as a spectrum" as a theory, concept, as something to visualize, or are conflating it with gender. Perhaps the best source I see on the matter is this 2015 "Sex redefined" Nature source that I saw years ago, but it doesn't present the matter as definitive/as this now being the scientific consensus. We are now in 2020, and there is still scant material on this "sex redefined" aspect. And as we can see, so much of the Nature source talks about intersex people/disorders of sex development. But to repeat, we mention intersex people in the article, and intersex people are also divided into male and female varieties. As for "the current definitions are based on a run-of-the-mill, general dictionary; not even a medical one!", the second source used for the lead sentence is clearly a biological source. Obviously, biological sources are appropriate for this topic. So are "Dictionary of Biology" sources when it comes to defining what sex as a biological topic is. Outside of sex differences in medicine and discussion of intersex conditions, how is one to define a medical source on this topic? I pointed to WP:MEDRS because you pointed to the "Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders" source and Scientific American, and because sex as a biological/anatomy topic does fall within WP:MEDRS's scope (which is why WP:MEDMOS has an Anatomy section). I don't see this discussion (between the two of us) truly as "bickering" unless one wants to see "bickering" as just a synonym for "arguing." But arguing does commonly happen on Wikipedia talk pages; they are partly intended for that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm pointing out to you that you're wrong about the DSD Consensus article and wonder if you even have read it beyond the title. Of course, the article does start from the premise of "Intersex" disorders, but then fans out and explores the complexity of sex determination and even discusses Gender Dysphoria, so it does, in my opinion, provide a basis for my case. There actually have been published several iterations of this as a result of successive consensus conventions over the years, as far as I can tell, so the one linked below may not even be the most up-to-date one. Like I said, I need time to delve deeper into this issue and find more reliable academic sources that would suit Wikipedia's standards. There is no need to keep on re-stating that demand. I will heed your call and apologize if I had given away the impression of 'activism' and for using qualifiers like 'nominally' to convey a bit more scientific nuance, as well as other matters that are continually being regurgitated here. I personally have moved on and am fully focused on trying to find support for my impression of the current scientific consensus that I feel is not currently reflected in the article. If you would allow me some time and peace to do this research in my limited spare time, I would greatly appreciate it. Amphioxys (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm blown away by the fact that you yourself provided an even stronger source for what I've been saying all along, namely the Nature article Sex redefined , only once again for you to blow it off with layman's reasonings. How much more explicit can this be stated than in its very lead: "The idea of two sexes is simplistic. Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that."!? It even states at the very end: "Yet if biologists continue to show that sex is a spectrum, then society and state will have to grapple with the consequences". In other words: Biologists generally agree (consensus) that sex is a spectrum, even though society still resists this notion. Of course it mentions intersex people, because intersex people is exactly that phenomenon that led scientists onto the trail of the non-binary character of sex in the first place! That is how science works! Amphioxys (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

By the way: I still see no explanation for the use of an ordinary dictionary (Oxford) as a valid source for describing this foundational concept in the life sciences. Yes, obviously there is at least one other source that is an actual biological textbook, which I already mentioned myself earlier, namely Purves . As I also wrote already, I did scour this book looking for anyone resembling the phrase "The gametes produced by an organism define its sex..." and came up empty. A closer reading of relevant pages in Purves (2001), like those that deals with sex determination (pages 192-194), animal hormones (chapter 41) and animal reproduction (chapter 42), reveal that these only contain descriptions of how sex is expressed in a given organism by the interplay of chromosomes, genes and hormones, but it never explicitly states that "gametes define the sex of an organism". So by your very own standards, this very phrase should be removed immediately or modified into a more suitable form that does justice to the actual description in relevant textbooks. Amphioxys (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I read the source. I did not just read the title. And per WP:NOABSTRACT, I don't just read or cite the abstract. I stand by what I stated about using that source. I've been over what this article should and shouldn't address; it shouldn't focus on gender dysphoria either, and I'm sure that Johnuniq and Chiswick Chap would agree with that. And since I've pinged them again, I'll go ahead and take this time to ask Chiswick Chap if he has any opinions on your latest arguments. If he'd rather not comment, that's obviously fine. But he works on a lot of biology articles and has brought different ones to GA and FA status. See his user page if you have not already.

As for you still seeing "no explanation for the use of an ordinary dictionary (Oxford) as a valid source for describing this foundational concept in the life sciences.", I already commented on that. I'm not commenting on it again. I also noted above that "the two sources used for the lead sentence are used for 'Organisms of many species are specialized into male and female varieties, each known as a sex.' And the second of those sources is used for the following sentence in the lead: 'Individual organisms which produce both male and female gametes are termed hermaphroditic.' Those sources are not used for the 'The gametes produced by an organism define its sex' piece."

You can remain "blown away by the fact" that I cited the "Sex redefined" Nature source. But per my statement that "it doesn't present the matter as definitive/as this now being the scientific consensus. We are now in 2020, and there is still scant material on this 'sex redefined' aspect. And as we can see, so much of the 'Nature' source talks about intersex people/disorders of sex development.", I fail to see how you think it "underlines even more strongly [your] case" (like you commented below). No, we can't use that source to state that "biologists generally agree that sex is a spectrum." We can't use that source to state that this is the scientific consensus. That would be WP:Synthesis. The source does not speak on scientific consensus. It states, "Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that." Use of the word think is not some definitive statement on the matter; it's not a "generally agree" or a "scientific consensus" statement. The word biologists doesn't specify how many biologists. It does not state "most biologists." And we certainly can't interpret the source to mean "all biologists." And the spectrum it's focused on is intersex people/disorders of sex development. What other spectrum are they referring to? You act like the Wikipedia Sex article is denying that spectrum. It does not. What the lead sentence states is "Organisms of many species are specialized into male and female varieties, each known as a sex." This is true. And to repeat one more time, intersex people are also divided into male and female varieties. The lead states "many species." It does not state "all species." And that lead sentence is WP:Due because the literature on biological sex overwhelmingly focuses on male and female varieties. Again, the lead already states, "Individual organisms which produce both male and female gametes are termed hermaphroditic." It already states, "Humans may also be intersex." It already states, "Fungi may also have more complex allelic mating systems, with sexes not accurately described as male, female, or hermaphroditic." You are making it seem like the article so simplistic on sex, but I don't see it. And I do very much understand this topic.

To repeat, "On Wikipedia, we judge scientific consensus based on WP:Due weight. If quality sources are not speaking on what these low-quality or poor-quality sources are speaking on, then it's hard to argue 'scientific consensus has changed.' And this is especially the case when those sources are speaking of 'sex as a spectrum' as a theory, concept, as something to visualize, or are conflating it with gender." To you, this is me blowing the Nature source "off with layman's reasonings." What???? This has nothing to do with a laymen's understanding, as if I don't know what I'm talking about. This has to do with how Wikipedia works and is supposed to work. And I haven't demanded anything. I see no need to debate you any further on this topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I have been summoned once again. A lot of ink has been spilt on this discussion, but none of it says anything more than 1) there is no consensus for the proposed radical changes 2) WP:Synthesis forbids much of it anyway 3) Many significant gender matters such as gender dysphoria are off-topic for this article, which is at the level of basic biology not society and sociology. Finally, the repetition in the argumentation is becoming tendentious and disruptive. There is a moment to accept the consensus gracefully. Wikipedia has plenty of room for gender articles, it just happens that this article isn't one of them. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

___

References

Updating this page: Scope?

As mentioned above, I'd like help improve this page.

As a starting point to ask about scope. To reflect on expected content for someone coming to this page, I took a look at the equivalent page on Encyclopedia Britannica. (I'm not saying this is a stellar article to imitate, but I think it's worth referencing for "expected content".)

I think the expected content for a "Sex" article would fall into these three categories:

1. sexual reproduction - vs. asexual, the process of genetic recombination and evolutionary context
2. sex as gender - male/female anisogamy and physiology associated with these
3. sex as behavior - behavior associated with sexual reproduction, especially in animals

Is there anything about an article about "Sex" that doesn't fall into one of these three categories as defined above? Conversely, are there topics in these three categories as defined above that aren't relevant to an article about "Sex"?

In the Encyclopedia Britannica version of this subject I think these are roughly equally covered. I appreciate prior suggestions to move the article to "biological sex" and I think this would be reasonable based on current content, which seems too narrow to justify the current article title. But I think it would be lovely to expand and improve this article to be more comprehensive.

Mad Price Ball ✉ ✍ 22:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The title "sex" attracts lots of bad links that should be going to sexual intercourse, human sexual activity, or other topics. Biological sex would be a better title, with sex as a disambiguation page. Plantdrew (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

In terms of recent discussion, there are two previous lengthy discussions that address the scope of this article and its title. That is this 2015 discussion, and this aforementioned 2018 discussion. In the 2018 one, I stated, "why do we need a general sex article covering everything seen at Sex (disambiguation), when we already have the Sexual intercourse, Human sexual activity, Human sexuality, Non-penetrative sex, Animal sexual behaviour, Non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals, Sexual reproduction, Gender, Mating, Mating type, Human mating strategies, Sexing, Genetic recombination, and Sex drive articles? How would a general sex article help anyone at all? It would be nothing but a WP:Content fork of articles. A mess of disorganization with the article not clear on what it's about. Apparently, it would be about everything that is 'sex.' And if that is the case, get ready for even more content to be stuck in it, including human sexual response cycle and sex life material. It would be like a lengthier version of the disambiguation page, where readers and editors are already directed to get to the page they are looking for. And the article would be more human-centric than ever. The vast majority of our sexual content on Wikipedia is about humans. I should know; I work on many sexual topics. This article is actually one of the least human-centric. All of the content in this article now would be moved to a Biological sex or Anatomical sex title. So this article would continue to exist, but under a different name and we would have a useless general Sex article in addition to it. I mean, what point would there be for anyone to link to this article in that case? Just like with a disambiguation page, people would link here and then realize that it's not what they meant link to and then use a more specific link."

Above, I stated, "it's important to keep this article focused on sex and not gender (a distinction which exists, no matter that there are people who disagree with it). It's important for reasons noted in the aforementioned Village pump discussion and because of all the biological articles that link to this one as a reference to sex and not gender. Otherwise, we might as well combine the Sex and Gender articles [...] The reason the article doesn't cover "sex-as-a-behavior", except for when referring to sexual reproduction or mating, is because we already have the Sexual reproduction, Mating, Sexual behavior, etc. articles. As mentioned above, the scope of this article was extensively discussed; I feel the same way about it now that I felt about it in 2018."

So if you are speaking of expanding this article to the point that it is significantly about things like human sexual behavior (including non-penetrative sex), the sex lives of humans, and gender roles and/or gender identity aspects, I don't agree with your suggestion. I don't agree with expanding this article's scope to the point where it will no longer be focused on biological sex. That is not "updating." That's changing the focus of this article. We should have a Wikipedia article specifically about this topic -- biological sex. But when it comes to naming the article "Biological sex" or "Anatomical sex", editors have taken issue with it, as seen in the 2015 discussion. In that discussion, you can see Plantsurfer stating, "Sex must remain as the apex article. Sex is a key biological phenomenon, a fundamentally important reproductive strategy employed by a majority of eukaryotic organisms, including plants. This is an encyclopedia and it is important that the biological facts of what sex is are presented at the apex of the hierarchy of sex-related articles. Not as a disambiguation page, but as a fully-developed, overarching article that presents the principles in a non human-orientated way and that links directly, or indirectly via subsidiary articles, down to subsidiary issues such as human sexuality. In an encyclopedia we should be conscious of the taxonomy of concepts and articles, and not be responding to POV issues like 'what most people are looking for'. Consequently we should not have any discussion of the mechanics of, or variations in human sexual inter- or outer-course in the sex article, though of course these topics have their place elsewhere in the encyclopedia." And now there is new discourse in the media about the term "biological sex" being problematic (especially with regard to transgender people).

As for the Encyclopedia Britannica source, it's focused on biological aspects as well. Not on gender. I don't mind this article covering a lot of what the Encyclopedia Britannica source covers as long as the article does not essentially become another Sexual reproduction article. It already covers what the Encyclopedia Britannica covers, but just not in as much detail since Wikipedia employs WP:Summary style and leaves the Sexual reproduction and Mating articles (etc.) to cover the vast majority of the sexual reproduction and mating material (etc.). You could write up a draft in your sandbox for what you have in mind regarding expanding this article, and then editors can comment on whether it (or aspects of it) are an improvement or not. You could also provide a brief outline here on this talk page for what you have in mind. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Quick remark: I'm in any case against moving the article to Biological Sex, since that is a redundant adjective. Sex is biological per definition. I will look at the rest later. Amphioxys (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Non-biological sex does not exist. Plantsurfer 23:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

And yet people state "biological sex" to be clear that they aren't referring to sexual activity or other things "sex" may refer to. It's why I stated "biological sex" above in this section. I'm not stating that I strongly endorse that title. I'm stating that I understand the concern that "sex" is a vague title because of all of the things that it may refer to and the argument that it especially refers to sexual activity in common usage, which is why there have been suggestions to retitle this article "Biological sex" or "Anatomical sex", and is why other suggestions are seen at the beginning of the 2015 discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Here comes another provisional hot take. Please bear with me and understand that I obviously will work on providing more reliable sources for this. The series of tweets by professor Rebecca Helms mentioned earlier actually gives an interesting overview of the nature of Sex and several main categories of its expression in humans, and by extension other organisms as well. This is also illustrated in the graph by Scientific American on this subject. The categories are, in order of expression:

• Chromosomal Sex - Sex determination by applying chromosomal differentiation to meiosis.
• Genetic Sex - Sex determination based on the expression of the actual genes no matter what chromosomes are involved.
• Hormonal Sex - Sex determination based on the interaction of hormones and organs/tissues/cells.
• Developmental Sex - The result of all of the above and the expression of sex as primary and secondary anatomical traits, in other words: 'anatomical sex'

Now, I'm not saying that we necessarily need to go into this detail in this general article on Sex, but if we want to talk categories, we should rather take a look at what scientists feel are useful categories, especially in secondary and tertiary sources. I do also think that the article on Encyclopedia Britannica actually does a much better job at explaining sex than the wikipedia one, so kudos to Mad Price Ball for mentioning this. I think we should look very closely at these and similar tertiary sources for restructuring the Wikipedia take on this. Amphioxys (talk) 08:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Clarification: I provisionally agree that we should focus on Sex as biological phenomenon, which is perhaps implied by what I just added to the conversation. I also provisionally agree that we should not put too much information in the apex article on Sex, at most an overview, interlinks and/or referrels to 'further reading' to the other articles listed by Flyer22 Reborn. I also did not mean to imply we should put everything mentioned on Encyclopedia Britannica here. What exactly most be covered by the article, or its scope, is less important to me right now, than specific definitions and descriptions that are used in it. As I wrote elsewhere, I will deal with these separately under different headers. Amphioxys (talk) 08:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Addition: Still haven't yet started researching the relevant literature more closely, but this article in Nature underlines even more strongly my case, which ironically was brought to my attention by Flyer22-Reborn themself: "Sex Redefined" Nature (2015). I'll be back. Amphioxys (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't, and I explained why above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

And I am not male. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

My bad. The offensive pronoun is hereby corrected. I will get back on the rest later. Amphioxys (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

____

References

I think some info should be added to this line.

This line “ Humans may also be intersex.” I think it should be noted that many professionals considered intersex to be disorders of sex development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 02:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tshepo JJ FOXX Solane (talk • contribs) 10:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Um your comment isn’t showing up. CycoMa (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

See non sequitur (fallacy). Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Also adamantly against this edit as per WP:WEASEL and WP:NOTED. Besides that, I'm smelling a POV pushing for marginalization of intersex people as being 'defective' by having a 'disorder'. Amphioxys (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Saying I’m trying to push marginalization against anyone is a strawman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs)

Your POV still does not follow. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

How so? I presented sources of them stating it so. These sources call them conditions so what makes what I am saying wrong?— Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs)

Is being born without hands a condition? So: people without hands don't exist? Because that's what you're saying. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Listen here you don’t get to say what is a condition or what isn’t a condition. The sources I provided state that intersex is a group of conditions.

Plus I never said that intersex people don’t exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 21:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

There is a large scientific literature on intersex conditions in animals ranging from invertebrates to domesticated mammals such as goats. A search of Google scholar using the search term "intersex animals" turns up 15700 hits. The consensus in these articles is that intermediate conditions between male and female can occur that may be genetically or developmentally determined. That is statement of documented scientific fact. The statement in the lead that "Humans may also be intersex" is true, but my attempt to add that animals may also be intersex was been reversed by User:Flyer22 Frozen with the comment "The intersex article is about humans and the term is usually reserved for humans (which is why the Intersex article is all about humans). We already mention hermaphrodite lower in the lead. Maybe we can reword this intersex aspect so that you are okay with it being in the lead? But I caution against referring to other animals as intersex when the Intersex article doesn't note them." First of all, the term "intersex" is a widely-used technical biological term and is not reserved for use in the context of human sexuality. That is fact, not POV. Secondly the reference to hermaphrodite is irrelevant. Hermaphrodite does not equate to intersex either in humans or animals or even in plants. They are entirely separate concepts. Finally, the caution given in Flyer22 Frozen's comment is inappropriate. Per WP:NPOV, it should be open to anyone to refer to any content that can be backed up by citations, regardless of another editor's POV. This article is about biological sex, not about human sex exclusively and still less about cultural attitudes towards human sexuality. Plantsurfer 23:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

As seen here, you added nothing to the lead about non-human animals being intersex. And it is a fact, as made clear in the Intersex and Hermaphrodite articles, that the term intersex is usually reserved for humans. And when I state "usually reserved for humans," I mean that the overwhelming majority of the literature on the topic of intersex is about humans. That is, in fact, why the Intersex article is the way that it is. It is not POV to caution pointing readers to the Intersex article with regard to non-human animals when that article is not about non-human animals. It will confuse readers and is akin to WP:EGG. And that the terms hermaphrodite and intersex have been used interchangeably (as also made clear in the Intersex and Hermaphrodite articles) is reason enough to mention the hermaphrodite coverage. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, per this recent discussion at Talk:Sex reassignment surgery, editors should be careful how they are using Google hit results. Per WP:SET#Notability, using quotation marks matters. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

That’s not what I’m saying. I know what I’m saying isn’t clear but there are tons of sources of Intersex being a condition.

I can provide more sources if y’all like.

But I think more info on it should be added to inform the reader of it being so. CycoMa (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

agree Plantsurfer 19:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion Hatnote Change

Currently, the About-hatnote says: "For the act, see Sexual intercourse." Sex is (its acts are) not just/simply intercourse. Non-penetrative sex exists. The lead of Human sexual activity mentions intercourse as an example and is (thus) a better target page. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. That's not totally unreasonable, but hatnotes like this can never be perfect. What's pointed to here also covers animals, while your suggestion doesn't. Your suggestion also covers social aspects, which is possibly too broad of a topic to point to. There's no perfect option here, and any change like this should probably have consensus first. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Meh. Then how about changing "For the act" to "For the penetrative act"? --143.176.30.65 (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this, your question was answered. Do not mark an answered question as unmarked again. As for non-penetrative sex, the Sexual intercourse article is clear that the term sexual intercourse may also refer to non-penetrative sex. But does it usually refer to that? No. Even sex with regard to sexual activity doesn't usually refer to that (per numerous academic sources that make that clear). That stated, I'd been thinking of changing the hatnote to "For the act, see Sexual intercourse and Human sexual activity. But now that Deacon Vorbis has mentioned the non-human animal factor, I'm somewhat leaning against that. We wouldn't then want to add the Animal sexual behavior article to the hatnote. Although the Sexual intercourse article is human-centric because the term/literature is and we have the Animal sexual behavior article to extensively cover other animals, it does have a section dedicated to non-human animals. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

In a follow-up contribution in this thread, I suggested/requested an alternative edit. The template was modified by User:QuadColour without addressing this addition of mine. Therefore I removed the answered parameter, and also changed a period into a question mark to more clearly mark my alternative edit suggestion - which is, adding the word "penetrative". Your statement that my "question was answered" is correct when referencing my initial question (edit request); my second question remained unanswered. This sentence you wrote, "Do not mark an answered question as unmarked again.", reads like a command. May I suggest you use a different tone when addressing fellow editors. I disagree with your assessment of what Sexual intercourse says about non-penetrative sex in the context of this discussion. The lead states that "sexual intercourse" generally refers to a specific penetrative act, namely vaginal intercourse. Then it discusses other types of intercourse. Only halfway the second paragraph, the article states that "[Sexual intercourse] usually encompasses sexual penetration, while non-penetrative sex has been labeled "outercourse", but non-penetrative sex may also be considered sexual intercourse." Clearly, in particular given the preceding text of the lead, labelling non-penetrative sex as intercourse is described here as an exception. Even the subsequent Wikipedia text that "Sex, often a shorthand for sexual intercourse, can mean any form of sexual activity." uses a reference that only sources the second portion of that sentence, namely that it can mean any form of sexual activity. Even the reference itself includes a quote parameter with: "In English, the term 'sex' is often used to mean 'sexual activity' and can cover a range of behaviours. Other languages and cultures use different terms, with slightly different meanings." Your sentence that includes the phrase "per numerous academic sources that make that clear" is vague and I don't understand the point you try to make there, but regardless, you do not specify the 'numerous sources' that are supposed to back up your point. Sex is sexual activity, and the type of sexual activity that includes penetration is sexual intercourse. Therefore a hatnote for the article about sex that says "For the act, see Sexual intercourse." is unclear and misleading. The penetrative acts (of sex) are sexual intercourse. In your rebuttal, I don't see any solid arguments against my suggestion of changing "For the act" to "For the penetrative act". This is why I'm once again removing the answered parameter to re-request modification of the article. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Why aren't you commenting while signed in?

As for the rest, I fail to see how my "Even sex with regard to sexual activity doesn't usually refer to that (per numerous academic sources that make that clear)." statement is not clear. Although sex with regard to sexual activity can refer to non-penetrative sex, it usually does not refer to non-penetrative sex. Or I should state that it refers to non-penetrative sex significantly less than it refers to penetrative sex. When the term sex is used to refer to sexual activity, the sexual activity usually concerns one or more sexually penetrative acts. Researchers have made this clear for years. Sources such as this 2004 "Handbook of Adolescent Psychology" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 193, tell us that "When researchers use the term sex, they nearly always mean sexual intercourse – more specifically, penile–vaginal intercourse." And years later, sources like this 2013 "Sexuality Education Theory and Practice" source, from Jones & Bartlett Publishers, page 152, tell us, "In many cultures around the world, vaginal sex is what is usually implied when people refer to 'having sex' or 'sexual intercourse'. It is the most frequently studied behavior and is often the focus of sexuality education programming for youth." There are a number of sources in the Sexual intercourse article, and numerous ones in the literature on sex in terms of sexual activity, that make these aspects clear. Yes, as recently as 2018/2019. These sources address what sex means in the context of sexual activity, including how the term is usually defined by laypeople and academics. That is what I meant by "numerous academic sources." I'm not going to sit here and list a bunch of sources to support my point on this matter. Non-penetrative sex often gets lost in the conversation, and it is not for Wikipedia to right/try to right that perceived wrong. Adding "human sexual activity" or "for the penetrative act" to the hatnote is not going to change the fact that the term sex, when referring to sexual activity, is focused far more on penetrative sexual activity than it is on non-penetrative sexual activity. And adding "for the penetrative act" can be considered misleading since the Sexual intercourse article also addresses non-penetrative sex (in more than one section), and since, as made clear by the Non-penetrative sex article, "Some forms of non-penetrative sex, particularly when termed outercourse, include penetrative aspects, such as penetration that may result from forms of fingering or oral sex." The sources are there in that article supporting that fact. To some sources, fellatio is outercourse. You have been replied to. If you keep removing the "answered=yes" from the template every time you come back for a new reply, you can expect someone to consider this disruption on your part. I'm not debating you any further on any of this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I will not re-request modification. Your reply reads like an offensive lecture, and you come across as hostile. Your sentence "You have been replied to." was also unnecessary. I'm merely trying to improve Wikipedia, used this Talk page to discuss with my fellow editors the suggestion of adding "penetrative" to improve the accuracy - it still wouldn't be perfect - of the hatnote. Maybe bad experiences on Wikipedia have made you bitter, but what a way to treat a newcomer... --143.176.30.65 (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I suggest we remove or edit the term intersex

The term intersex isn’t a medical or a scientific terminology anymore. It’s a political terminology these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs)

You've tried to remove intersex from the lead before, and were reverted here and here. You've also proposed changing the text: Talk:Sex/Archive 7#I think some info should be added to this line.. There was opposition and no consensus. Don't keep starting the same discussion over and over again in the hopes that you get your way. Mention of intersex belongs in the lead, just like mention of it belongs lower in the article. I also disagree with your proposal to add "disorders of sex development" text to the lead. It's unnecessary. I think you should move on. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey why did you remove the sources I added?

You removed all the sources I added. It would have been fine to remove some of them but there was no reason to remove all of them.

Can you at least let me keep some of them up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 12:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Will these sources do? https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-319-47829-6_340-1

https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990

https://bio.libretexts.org/?title=Bookshelves%2FCell_and_Molecular_Biology%2FBook%3A_Biofundamentals_%28Klymkowsky_%26_Cooper%29%2F04%3A_Social_evolution_and_sexual_selection%2F4.09%3A_Sexual_dimorphism

The reason I added them was because it seemed like there wasn’t enough sources claiming that sex is defined by gametes an organism produces. Like one of the sources cited was a dictionary. If these sources wouldn’t do then I’ll use other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 12:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I commented in the edit history. I'm not repeating. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)