Talk:Sexual differentiation/Archive 1

Archive 1

I

I realize this article might be more correctly entitled: an overview of the major human sex differences. There is little discussion of mechanisms of differentiation. I would like to do so in the future, but only after writing an Intersex article. If anyone else would like to contribute, feel free.

facial differentiation - section request

Request for section. What is it that makes a human face male or female? I've noticed that simple line drawings that don't show hair can often be clearly male or female, but I can't tell what makes them so. Certainly, men generally have short hair, and females generally have no visible facial hair, but I'd love to hear from someone who has more info.

Men have heavier jaws and slightly thicker features. Those are the main cues that do not involve make-up and hairstyle. alteripse 01:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The folks that run faceresearch.org have done a lot of studies which relate to your question. You might want to chase down some of their work. Pete.Hurd 01:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, you two. I just checked out that site and sent the researcher(s) an email. I see now that thinner eyebrows are feminine, but hopefully I'll have a good/full answer soon. Elvey 19:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

reason for removal of circumcision remarks

I removed the following comment Additional differentiation may occur among males due to circumcision procedures. This form of genital modification and mutilation removes the foreskin of the male, and is still routinely carried out by many American hospitals today. because a hundred cultural modifications of male and female bodies can be listed ranging from piercings for earrings to breast implants and various types of hair removal. Why not dress? In other words, this article is about biological and to a limited extent psychological processes of differentiation and I don't think it improves the usefulness of the article to broaden it to cultural differences, for which we have many other articles and especially not to bring a circumcision debate here. The contributor of the circumcision remark is welcome to start a new article on cultural differences of body modification if he wishes. Alteripse 23:15, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I've relocated the text to the culturally-focused area of the article. Although many would claim circumcision is much more than just cultural (and that it is essential and absolutely necessary part of puberty by some accounts), that is POV anyway so I will let that slide on the physiological front. Nonetheless the psychological process of identifying males as the target of cutting is present on pretty big scale, cultural or not. And I should hope this merits a mention in the differentiation process just as many of the other cultural descriptions strive toward. DanP

Why does this single cultural body modification warrant mention here? Why not a thousand others? It seems as out of place as if I stuck an sentence reminding people that XX chromosomes are female in an article on job sex discrimination. It might be true but it is irrelevant to the topic of the article. I really really think this topic is out of place here. We have lots of article to have circumcision wars in. I do appreciate the civility of your discussion but it simply does not belong in this article. Please do not put this here. Alteripse 01:44, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mutilation is physiological and has visible biological effects. It is not the same as psychological differences, which as listed focus on human-specific attributes. So why not delete all manner of human cultural impact? If removing fifteen square inches of flesh from an adult man is not "sexual differentiation", why indeed does it include whether a person wears a dress, or has a particular sexual preference? Maybe this whole article should be species-neutral then, and culture should just be removed. I am OK with leaving differentiation focused on natural biological development, if you are. DanP 17:04, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As you did not respond to my polite, respectful, and reasoned request, I have removed the sentence. Circumcision is unrelated to the biological aspects of sexual differentiation. There are several other articles which address the issues in detail. There are several more you can write: do we have articles on cultural differences in body modification? How about on political groups trying to change cultural habits of body modification? After a look on your user page I got the impression that you joined wikipedia to preach a cause rather than to write an encyclopedia. Please prove me wrong and respect the effort that many of us have put into these articles. Thanks. Alteripse 03:24, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

DanP I want to make sure I understand. You are willing to trash this article if we do not include a notice about how victimized you feel by circumcision? I put it back in, so you got what you wanted. There is a cost, which perhaps you will think well worth it. You have just converted me from being mildly sympathetic to your crusade into thinking your presence at wikipedia is for other purposes and is becoming a problem. I am posting a request that the community pay attention to your edits at the Request for comments page. Alteripse 22:29, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You conviced me that culture is not differentation. Humans are only one species, and throwing in cultural views is not right. Biology is a good subject. I think your false accusations are just about pushing your POV, not improving accuracy of the article. DanP 02:28, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This article is about humans and you know it. And you just sidestepped the accusation: you blanked part of the article not because you disagreed with it but because I initially declined your circumcision rant. If you notice, some else has already re-deleted it because it doesn't belong here. And I am curious as to what you suppose my POV is? Alteripse 02:41, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I see. You think a man should just know his place and go back and watch football? When American babies are born, usually the first question is "is it a girl or boy?". If it's the latter, the second question is "when will he be cut?". You will say that is not sexual differentiation among humans, I suppose, no matter the prevalence. My contribution to the article was Additional differentiation may occur among males due to circumcision procedures. This form of genital modification and mutilation removes the foreskin of the male, and is still routinely carried out by many American hospitals today.

Yours was People in different cultures treat children of different sexes differently. One difference that varies among cultures in circumcision, which in some cultures is commonly performed on males and in some cultures on females. This paragraph, which has little to do with biological and psychological aspects of sexual differentiation is inserted at the insistence of an anticircumcision activist because no encyclopedia article is complete without a reminder of how victimized a small minority of circumcised males feel

I feel hurt that your response, right in the article no less, to my NPOV addition was to sharply attack a person on the grounds you stated. Indeed, the best I could do was to assume you felt human culture had no such place in the article. Otherwise, what was I to assume? That you were being bitter? I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, and I hope you'd do the same for me. DanP 16:36, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The reason gender identity and gender orientation were included in this article is because there is some evidence that hormones or other biological factors may affect them. Circumcision is a purely cultural issue; it is not in any sense a function of biological differentiation. I explained it was out of place in this article and politely asked you to remove it. When I removed it with an explanation you blanked a large section of the article, apparently not because you disagreed with the content of the section but to express your displeasure at my removal. This was basically extortion-- your action said to me, "include my message or I will trash this article." So I inserted exactly the message you seem to be proclaiming: (1) that circumcision should be considered some part of sexual differentiation because it is an example of how some cultures treat males and females differently, and (2) a small minority of males feel victimized by it. Are you complaining that I am misrepresenting your message? It is the message you are posting all over the place: even an article that has nothing to do with circumcision needs to remind the reader it's really really really bad, even though you are certainly aware that acting in this way about it puts you in a very small minority. I yielded to your extortion threats and put your message in very accurately. If you don't think this is your message, you should understand this is exactly the message your actions are spreading all around wikipedia. It wasn't a personal attack. My POV, as I have already explained to Walabio, is anti-circumcision, but if you haven't figured it out, your behavior with this article has really pissed me off. As I suggested before, go find or start an article about how each culture treats boys and girls differently and you can put circumcision right in the middle of it and I will leave you alone. Alteripse 23:19, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your accusations are false. I reviewed several articles on sexual differentation by prominent biologists, and I thought your dislike of cultural components in the article had some merit. I am fine with including gender identity and gender orientation, although they are consequences of differentiation, not actual sexual differentiation itself.

I would hope that some women, after explaining the post-mastectomy damage to gender identity and feelings of wholeness, might choose to add a short note on how this impacts sexual differentiation at various ages of development within our culture. But I would also hope you would not fire back

because a hundred cultural modifications of male and female bodies can be listed ranging from piercings for earrings to breast implants and various types of hair removal. Why not dress?.

That is hurtful. I was refering to unchosen physiological change, not cultural choices person makes. This is all relevant to a person's feelings of identity, and indeed dress is mentioned among other cultural components. For NPOV, it is better to avoid prefixes like "pro" and "anti" which make hidden value judgements. Thank you for brutally branding people a "small minority" simply because you say so. That is marginalization, or possibly victim blaming, not accuracy. Plenty of men are affected one way or the other. I will not bother with the article further, so take this as your victory. DanP 16:03, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What was a false accusation? Why are you surprised I reacted angrily when you blanked the whole section of the article? This is simply an article in which circumcision is irrelevant. When I saw nearly all of your editing at wikipedia had been about circumcision, and you have already been involved in edit disputes at infant and violence over insertion of disputably relevant anticircumcision material, I concluded that was your main purpose here, and I exaggerated it when I suggested you wanted the message in every article. As for pointing out that your view of circumcision represents a small minority (at least in the US), are you seriously suggesting that is not an accurate statement? Every single day over 90% of fathers of newborn sons in the US prove that your opinion of circmcision is indeed a "small minority." Finally, you yourself use the term victim in the paragraph you just wrote, which confirms I was accurate in my paraphrase of your message. Since even true facts can sometimes be both brutal and hurtful, I won't argue with you about your perceptions and feelings, but other than my exaggeration of the number of article you were doing this to, you have not shown me that anything I wrote was false.

You still seem to have difficulty grasping the difference between cultural and biological factors that contribute to all the ways that average males in a culture differ from average females in a culture. This article discusses the biological factors, taking the reader from a zygote to the edge of those aspects that might be biologically influenced (gender identity, role, and sexual orientation). To outline all the other cultural ways that parents and society further amplify or elaborate these differences as a child grows up would fill a different article. This is not an area in which I claim expertise, but I suspect the majority of the cross cultural sex differences (the ones that are more important than who wears the earrings) are fairly unrelated to circumcision practices. Some societies circumcise infant boys, some circ girls, some adolescent boys, etc, but most societies in human history have not circumcised at all. Do you have any evidence that circumcision plays a role in male-female psychological differences? Do you think that you could use any aspect of sex-secific or sex-typical behavior to deduce who was circumcised and who wasn't? You would have to provide some evidence to convince me (and I am open to evidence) that circumcision deserves any more than the most tangential and minor mention even in an article on cultural influences on psychosexual differences between men and women. Consider psychological and behavioral differences between men and women (things like nurturing vs aggressivness, spatial aptitude vs verbal aptitude, etc) or consider purely culture-specific role differences (who controls the religious institutions and who cultivates the fields?); compare sex differences in a society that circumcises with one that doesn't. I don't think you can show that circumcision is much of a factor in male-female differences of either type. It certainly doesn't deserve to be presented as the principal childraising difference that makes girls into women and boys into men, which is what you implied when you wanted to insert circumcision as the sole childrearing difference worth mentioning.

My predictions are (1) the more you educate yourself on both cultural and biological sex differentiation, the less central you will think circumcision is to it, (2) if you work on some articles that don't tempt you to write about circumcision, you will quickly realize why you are participating here, (3) if you concentrate on making the articles that deal with circumcision accurate and complete, you will get your views in print, and (4) if you decide the only satisfying thing to do on wikipedia is to insert anti-circumcision messages in a large number of articles that don't mention circumcision, you will get into lots of disputes, make lots of people angry, get more "brutal" and "hurtful" things pointed out to you, and probably quit, with a feeling of being victimized. Since we started this exchange, it looks like you are making some good contributions in math topics and I assume you are addressing circumcision in the male anatomy articles where it is probably a useful addition. Keep up the good work. Alteripse 20:37, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I will address your statement: Every single day over 90% of fathers of newborn sons in the US prove that your opinion of circmcision is indeed a "small minority." You are quite wrong, both on percentages and on rationale. What you do not realize is that parental choice was not of much a factor, compared to hospital intervention, during the rise of the US ritual during the the early and mid 20th century. You seem to butress your argument on shoulders of those who choose not to learn about an issue, or are powerless to change it, not necessarily those who disagree on principle. Many issues, from racism to homophobia, are aided unwillingly by that destructive philosophy.

You accusations are wide, and your evidence on this is narrow. Psychological effects on adult sexuality can be found in the brit milah article. But as I said, I will not fix this article. Despite pro-mutilation cultures believing deeply that cutting is essential for puberty or manhood, or whatever, I will leave my words out as you wish. This has nothing to do with childrearing or culture, the scar is there in adulthood, and during sex, no matter what culture I choose. Leave your selective cultural dogma there, and I'll leave my physical differentiation out. Nicely done. DanP 22:18, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing that this article is not the subject of our disagreement and has nothing to do with cutting or not cutting. I don't agree with you that circumcision is not a cultural difference in childrearing. Look again at what I said: 90% of fathers of newborns every day show you that they disagree with you about circumcision. Nearly all of those fathers are circumcised and apparently do not think it is so bad that they don't have it done to their sons. You can say it is bad and shouldn't be done and has really bad longterm effects (and I agree with you on two of the points), but you cannot deny the simple fact that you are holding an opinion shared by only a small minority. That was the point I was making, that our viewpoint that it shouldn't be done is a minority opinion, and your viewpoint that it's a really really terrible thing that cripples a man's psychosexual development is shared by a much smaller minority. Now you can believe that 90% of the population is holding a wrong opinion, and I won't even disagree with you, but you are out of touch with reality if you think it's not a minority opinion or a cultural childrearing practice. Apparently our other major area of disagreement is the nature and magnitude of long-term ill effects, which is partly a matter of personal experience and value judgement, and I doubt we will convince each other on that topic. I have tried to be careful not to misrepresent your viewpoint (except when I exaggerated the percentage of articles that you want to put an anticircumcision message in), so please don't misrepresent mine or attack what I am not saying. OK? Alteripse 01:32, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In fact, this article is the subject of our disagreement. My first point is that NPOV means both sides are presented. This is not a popularity contest. Second, as you seem to believe based on your choice of minority/majority wording, let's suppose it were. My experience is that 90% of guys would, after learning about this and being given a choice, leave their sons intact. It is exceedingly rare that a man's signature is on the consent form, and many hospitals still nearly have a "leave no boy intact" policy, printing the circumcision consent on an automated basis with pressure tactics, as I have seen firsthand. Dads have only been allowed in "delivery" areas since about the 1980's. But I understand this varies considerably from one part of the US to another. But either way, I think this is all irrelevant as NPOV in this article is not about who's more popular.

My goal all along, in case you missed it entirely, is to explain that bodily losses affect sexual differentiation, and are affected by it. Women can undergo mastectomy, hysterectomy or episiotomy. Men can undergo circumcision, removal of the testes, or the prostate. Some of these are indicated or helpful, some are excessive ritual mutilation, excused only because the doctor gets paid. In all, there can be potential effects one way or the other on our sexual identity and feeling of belonging. These things can affect who we are physically, they are not solely "cultural choice" or fashion any more than gouging out an eye. A blind person is blind, they are not different on a "purely" cultural or child-development basis. The senses are affected, in addition to psychological impact.

I only claim it is fair to make mention of this kind of impact, if indeed you feel so strongly that homosexuality (a percentage-wise small minority in itself), and one's feelings of belonging to male or female genders on psychological and cultural basis, etc. are worthy of inclusion in a description of biological processes. The differentiation you include is not purely sexual, nor is it automatically exempt from culture and child-rearing interaction. That does not mean I don't see a connection. That is my thought, and you can take it with a grain of salt if you wish. DanP 16:30, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think you are failing to understand the distinction between the processes by which men become different from women and events that happen later that might make us feel like a "different kind" of man or woman. I suspect you might agree circumcision might be compared to rape. Every argument you have used here about circumcision also applies to rape, with the possible exceptions of the amount of physical damage and the intentions of the perpetrators (although I gather you might not admit much difference in the latter?). Rape is involuntary and the damage is largely in the perception of the victim and the harm to her social relationships. It can certainly affect the way a woman feels about being a woman, especially with respect to men. Rape is pretty common, perhaps around the world in the last 1000 years affecting a higher percentage of women than circumcision has affected men. Should we put rape in as a component of sexual differentiation? I would object. Your comparison with mastectomy was also a good one, and yes it has no place in an article on how women becme different from men. I am not trying to exclude your side of the circumcision debate (whether it's 1% or 90%), I'm trying to exclude both sides; I'd respond the same way to user:Robert Brookes putting in a sentence about circumcision as a positive aspect of sexual differentiation. All of your arguments deserve to be in an article, just not this one. That was my original objection and you won't change my mind on it. I keep hoping some part of your brain will finally get it and go, "oh THAT's what he was objecting to." Any chance?Alteripse 17:06, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, yes, in a "pure" biological sense you are right to exclude anything not specifically relevant to general sexual growth and development. Then explain how sexual identity or orientiation merits inclusion? As I said before, this article includes more than genuine sexual differentiation. Reading the whole article, it includes some things culturally connected to it. If DNA and gonadal development are relevant, choosing to wear frilly dresses should not be. The article refers to "all behaviors which are sex-dimorphic", which is quite broad. Actually, yes, I think rape should be included as a factor, and I think a person's sexual identity and feelings could be affected. These things are all perhaps even more dynamic as sexual differentiation of honey bees, and we wouldn't throw male and female on the list and leave it at that if we were writing articles about differentiation of honey bees. It is perhaps oversimplification of human sexuality to exclude dynamics so closely linked, and maybe a simple indication that "sexual function, identity, and feelings may be affected by trauma experienced throughout life" is adequate? But again, I don't care if you want to leave it as is. I see your objection, though I hope you can see mine with regard to the inconsistent and POV way it is applied. DanP 17:47, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

changes

I am in process of making this article larger and more detailed. Give me a chance to finish please befoe suggesting changes. I also intend to reference everything, especially the potentially controversial aspects. alteripse 16:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

—— IF sex differentiation arose from Galactic Rotation, which seems to be possible as the high inclination of the Milky Way Galaxy to the Equator and to the Ecliptic causes the Galaxy to pass almost along the meridian twice each day -- first in one direction and then in the other -- THEN it might be a much larger and more detailed problem than will fit even Wikipedia. Now the true nature of the Milky Way has been determined with remarkably little error, sex differentiation itself may no longer have any actual, real physical basis for existence at all. Also consider cloning which has caused some ladies to remark "Now we don't need men", and the appearance in advertisement of people carrying huge eggs. SyntheticET 17:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

defeminization

I see defeminization is on the list of sexology topics yet to be written. It would be good to have this ontological process contrasted with masculinization here. I'm considering assigning the task to a student... -Pete.Hurd

Feel free. I am curious as to what you mean by this, as I have trouble imagining a biological (as opposed to a semantic) distinction, and think virilization or masculinization are far superior terms semantically for the biological processes of differentiation. Are you sure this is the article in which "ontological" arguments belong? alteripse 8 July 2005 10:40 (UTC)

Sorry, Typo. meant ontogenetic, not ontological. The difference between masculinization and de-feminization came up most recently in one of my grad student's thesis defences and left me feeling ignorant. Masculinization via androgens triggering normal male sexual morphology, defeminize via mullerian inhibiting hormone (causing female structures to disintegrate). The two processes are not synonymous, and it may be that the difference is relevant in more than just rare cases of abnormal development. It's something I'm just getting started reading up on, and may not have time to do properly for a while. -Pete.Hurd

The article briefly mentions testicular AMH as preventing further development of mullerian ducts. I suspect AMH induces apoptosis of this 1-mm-big structure so you might describe it as "dissolution" of a potentially "feminine" structure, but I don't think of it that way because at that stage of development both sexes have the ducts, so there is no removal of a distinctively feminine structure, just a prevention of development of a feminine structure. From a semantic standpoint, I think it is a bit of stretch to call it defeminization. I think your student had more of a misunderstanding than you did. alteripse 8 July 2005 11:42 (UTC)

Alas, it was an endocrinologist colleage, not the student, that was trying to drag me to enligtenment... Just in the way of an example of a treatment of these two as distinctly separate processes, see Wallen, K. Hormonal influences on sexually differentiated behavior in nonhuman primates. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology 26 (2005) 7-26. -Pete.Hurd

please do. I think you can do it through my talk page and I will confirm I got it. wasnt logged in alteripse 8 July 2005 14:33 (UTC)

Blundered around a bit in with the Default Female section, would like to split the numbered list in that section into those pertaining to masculinization in one list, and defeminization in another Pete.Hurd 06:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

See defeminization. I read your papers concerning animal differentiation. The meaning and usage are clearly defined there, but I have to say that this is not a term commonly used in discussions of human differentiation and it seems a misnomer to use it for prevention of female development when the common sense meaning is removal of female characteristics. In the context of human adult sexuality, transgender people changing from female to male do things to remove feminine characteristics, and that actually seems a more valid use of the word in the ordinary sense. alteripse 11:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I see what you're saying. I think "misnomer" might be a bit strong, it is a common term in zoology. I think it ought to be possible to use the term correctly in the description of sexual differentiation from a bioloical point of view in this section, without confusing the term with it's other sense in other sections. It's not obvious to me that either use is "more valid", or that a choice has to be made between defining techical terms and perserving the common, or ordinary sense. -Pete.Hurd 14:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

image nominated for deletion

I nominated the image recently posted to this article for deletion [here]. Pete.Hurd 03:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree alteripse 03:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That was my first visit to WP:IFD and it was pretty depressing. If I interpret things correctly, it seems most nominations are never voted on. Pete.Hurd 03:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

changes undone

Alteripse, you undid lots of my changes, and said you'd explain here if I asked. I'm asking. Jonathan Tweet 15:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

List the ones you want me to explain. alteripse 03:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

All of them. [1] Jonathan Tweet 03:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for removal of: Theories like Money's encouraged doctors and parents to raise boys as girls when they were born with ambiguous genitalia. Contrary to expectations, these boys raised as girls usually spontaneously self-identify as boys.

• • This is simply wrong for several reasons. First it doesn't explain what "boys" are referred to, which begs the question and is misleading to the reader. Second, most XY males raised from the newborn period as girls do not self-identify as boys and are happy as girls. See the History of intersex surgery article for references. Third, the sentence reflects and promotes an oversimplified understanding of assignment in ambiguity-- the whole point is that they are not clclearly boys at birth. The small minority who have reassigned themselves were not ambiguous, but reassigned for irreparable birth defects or traumatic damage to the penis but had functional testes and normal hormone levels. If you dont understand this fundamental distinction, please do not edit on this topic. Finally this is not the article for an extensive discussion of intersex management.

If you list the other removed or altered sentences here, I will explain each just like that. Please offer changes on the talk page before putting them in the articles. thanks. alteripse 03:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Alteripse, to start with, can we agree that John Money's influential David Reimer case study was an instance of scientific fraud? Jonathan Tweet 14:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall that that was a point of any of the removed sentences, but your assertion does suggest what is wrong with so many of your additions. Scientific fraud is deliberate publication of fabricated research or observation results. Fraud is not (a) deluding yourself about an observation that you hope confirms your theory, (b) misinterpreting evidence in a way that supports your theory, (c) being wrong about a theory, (d) having your theory rejected by changing social values, (e) having a treatment based on your theory harm someone. I do not think there is any published evidence that Money deliberately published observations that he knew to be wrong, so unless you have such evidence, no I do not agree with you and suspect you don't know this subject nearly as well as you think you do. If you can point me to such evidence I will gladly change my opinion and thank you for educating me. alteripse 15:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. I was injudicious in using the term "fraud." Let's agree that Money publicly misrepresented the Reimer case [2] and used its (false) success to bolster his theories and his textbook. Can we agree on that? Is it fraud? Negligence? This isn't a court. Let's say just that he misrepresented the facts to his own advantage. Agreed? And on a related topic, his theory that there is no inborn behavioral dimorphism by sex is no longer credible. Can we agree on that, too? Jonathan Tweet 17:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"Injudicious"?, hardly-- you were indeed judging his intentions and ethics. Your linked reference to support the word "misrepresentation" says Money described a successful female identity at 9, while Reimer and his family are quoted as remembering that "by puberty" (age 12 at the earliest?) it wasn't working. So, of the following, what is the most likely explanation for the discrepancy between Money's report about status at 9 and the apparently clear failure by adolescence?:

1. Misrepresentation as you propose--- which means that Money knew the female identity was not well-established at age 9 and publicly asserted what he knew to be untrue (is this different from fraud?);
2. The parents, still trying to please the "expert" doctor they crossed the continent to see, and still trying their hardest to make the reassignment work, and/or still not ready to admit that the reassignment was turning out to be a horrible catastrophe, at age 9 said that things were not so bad and they were still hopeful that it was working out, and the 9 year old child was too cowed/unable to understand/unwilling to disagree with parents/or unwilling to disappoint to clearly say "it's not working, I'm not a girl", so that Money did nothing except fail to be skeptical enough to probe harder at the visit;
3. Maybe there were no unequivocal signs of failed female identity at age 9, but Money was too invested in a successful outcome and still hopeful that things would work out to probe enough, and this only became clearly an undeniable failure years later in adolescence (as cited in your article);
4. Maybe, too, we should be skeptical of the precision of accounts of remembered childhood doctor visits by adults who have a combination of overwhelming incentives to describe them as badly as possibe, since we have plenty of examples of disturbed adults "remembering" even their own parents including them in imagined abuses as fantastic as satanic ritual cannibalism and magical teleportation. And every pediatrician has had the experience of learning that a family said things were "fine" when they really weren't.

So I do not agree with you that your reference is evidence of misrepresentation. I personally find a combination of scenarios 2, 3, and maybe a bit of 4 far more likely than "misrepresentation" but that is my opinion and I did not put it in the articles.

The Reimer case did not by itself invalidate his "theory that there is no inborn behavioral dimorphism by sex", but you are correct that substantial doubt was cast upon it by this case and other evidence. Probably the most indisputable synopsis is simply that some evidence suggests that prenatal or early postnatal hormones may contribute to brain differentiation and gender identity. There is still a great deal of uncertainty and no unanimous agreement as to the relative contributions of prenatal and postnatal hormones, hormone-independent biological factors, social learning, and existential free choice to the development of gender identity.

Are you beginning to understand that some of your description and/or understanding of these issues was sloppy or imprecise? I am sure this seems horribly unfriendly to you, and I apologize for that, but this is a complicated topic and all of this material is covered in more detail and accuracy in our articles on sex assignment, sex reassignment, intersex surgery, history of intersex surgery, and David Reimer. This article does not need to become yet another oversimplified, partially accurate account. I am paying you the respect of explaining because I think you will begin to understand. If you still need more convincing, list each of your assertions that I removed here and I will explain what was wrong with each one. alteripse 19:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I am indeed beginning to see how far apart we are on this topic. Maybe we can find some common ground here. Would you agree that Money's theory that there is no inborn behavioral dimorphism by sex is no longer credible? Jonathan Tweet 02:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Most authorities now grant a greater influence of hormones in forming gender identity, but Money never argued that gender identity was not at all influenced by prenatal hormones. For instance, he was one of the researchers who reported the increased "tomboy" play in girls with CAH. He did groundbreaking observation work on gender identity by seeing the results of assignments in the 1940s and 1950s at Hopkins when the most common intersex conditions were becoming understood. I have the utmost respect for Steven Pinker, and tend to agree with his criticisms of the "nurture-only" folks, but intersex and gender identity is not his area of expertise and he was selectively and simplistically using the facts that made the best examples for his arguments. Read some of the primary accounts, like the first chapter of the book (Man and Woman, Boy and Girl, 1972) in which Money laid out the strongest and most influential arguments in favor of social learning and the malleability of nascent gender identity. At worst, he overestimated the ability of social teaching and the appearance of the infant's genitalia to offset the hormonal influences. alteripse 05:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, we're getting somewhere, Maybe we'll turn out to be fast friends in the end. Just wait. I've read MWBG, and I believed every word. You can imagine my surprise to find out that Money's famous case study argues against his theory as strongly as he said it argued for his theory. If you're telling me that I need to dust off a 35 year old textbook in order to see support for gender as not inborn, then I've made my point just fine. If there's a current, serious scientist who promotes Money's theory, show us one. For those who might like another primary source, here's a current piece of research [3] that shows that XY boys, when raised as girls, often define themselves as male anyway, demonstrating a significant inborn tendency in gender identity. Money's theory that it's a breeze to raise XYs as girls is wrong. Jonathan Tweet 15:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Money never said it was a "breeze to raise boys as girls", but you are correct, no authority these days is publicly supporting the 1972 version of his theory. However, if you think one case negates a generalization, then I will tell you that I take care of one 16 year old girl with exactly the condition described in Will's article who, according to her and her mother, has developed a secure female gender identity (unless you think they are lying to me). That certainly does not mean that female assignment for XY cloacal exstrophy is current standard of care, just that not every case handled a specific way turns out as desired (or disastrously). As with Reimer, these are terrible conditions to start with, and we are usually trying to choose the least bad treatment, not the treatment that works versus the treatment that doesn't work. And understand that your article does not "show that XY boys, when raised as girls, often define themselves as male anyway" which is why I removed the sentence from the article when you put it in. It shows that XY infants with normal testicular function, hormonal status, and tissue sensitivity will often develop a male gender identity despite being raised as girls." In contrast these papers [4][5] showed that most XY infants who did not have normal testicular function and sensitivity raised as girls developed a female gender identity, and that those raised male were about as likely to think they had been miss-assigned. Avoid oversimplification. alteripse 17:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC) PS: I think most of this belongs in the gender identity article, not here.

I did not remove and the ability of science to correct itself when it goes wrong. but it seems too simplistic and too idealistic. The change in scientific understanding of gender identity development went from "it's mainly determined by the chromosomes and hormones" (pre-Money) to "it's mainly a matter of social learning" (Money) to "genes and hormones play a bigger role than we thought but social learning is still important" (post-Money). I think this is scientific progress, maybe even "self-correction", but our understanding is still incomplete and will undoubtedly change, and the next generation of people like you will say "how could they have been so wrong?" just as you so casually condemned Money with a superficial understanding. Do you really think we clearly have it "right" now? Would you consider softening the sentence? alteripse 18:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

We're getting somewhere. More later. Jonathan Tweet 13:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm back. Your response unfortunately demonstrates that the sentence I removed is indeed original research (see WP:OR). If you and I, as editors, are supposed to assess the facts and render our opinion, that's OR. If you can't find a quotable source for this synopsis, it belongs on a personal web site, not on WP. Jonathan Tweet 00:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My objection was to the oversimplicity of your clause. We haven't gone from "wrong science" to "corrected science"-- we have gone from a poor understanding of gender identity determinants a century ago, to an improved one, to a more improved one (we hope), but it will be further refined in the future. I am also not so sure we should give the credit to "science" as much as to patients and advocates, social activists, psychologists, and doctors dealing with individual people's problems, values, and preferences. It is simple-minded naivete to make it a story of heroes and villains and assert we have it "correctly" now. Do you disagree with the other descriptions of the process in the sentence? alteripse 12:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you and I agree or disagree about what conclusions we can draw. Our conclusions are OR. Find a noteable source for these opinions or delete them. Jonathan Tweet 14:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

References for the assertions of the last sentence are simple-- none of those statements are contested by anyone these days and they reflect current conventional wisdom in the field. As you suggested was appropriate, I removed your claim about "science correcting itself" because I could not find a reference for it and suspect many would find it controversial-- replace it if you have one.

Now a final note in response to your revealing "it doesn't matter whether you and I agree". I have with civility and patience provided explanation and education for you. Almost every one of your alterations to the article and questions here demonstrated an understanding of this topic that is superficial and overly simplistic. I have not put a single assertion in this article that is not readily supportable by references. This article was written to be a brief non-controversial overview of the biology, not a debate of exactly what proportion of gender identity is attributable to learning, hormones, anatomy, etc. This is the only article providing a straightforward description of the biology of sex differentiation but there are many dealing with intersexuality, gender identity, John Money, David Reimer and all the things you can enjoy feeling self-righteous about. May I suggest at this point that rather than badger me to remove factual statements and turn the article into another topic entirely, you put your energy into an article more in need of your expertise? If you want to debate intersexuality and gender identity, there are a number of comparable editors at those articles and they are in need of help. Best wishes. alteripse 23:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Not that you've attributed the analysis, it's not longer original research. Good job! By the way, back on the topic of whether Money was a fraud, try this link [6]. The author reports that Money reported the sex change as a success while leaving out key facts that would question its success (e.g., that the "girl" in question wanted to be romantic with girls, not boys). I'm no lawyer, but that looks like fraud to me. Jonathan Tweet 15:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure it's fraud, if you assume that a preadolescent girl's refusal to agree to a future romantic interest in males is evidence of a male gender identity. In any other context you would be appalled at that presumption, but when you have already decided Money must be a villain, any stick is good enough to beat him with, isn't it? alteripse 16:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Sorry, my reply was impatient, but do you understand that Colapinto's Rolling Stone article was the original version of the account you already referenced above and merely says that Money's last real chance at a clinical assessment was around 9 years of age? For the next few years, according to the same account, all concerned back home, including parents and local doctors, were still going ahead with plans to complete feminization. As I explained the first time, there are many interpretations more likely than fraud. Why choose the most uncharitable unless you are simply looking for any evidence to match your presumption of guilt? alteripse 03:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

References

virilization and sexual differentiation

virilization and sexual differentiation are these two same? should they be merged?? Lara_bran 13:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No and no. alteripse 14:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

baby-making

greetings.

i would like to ask if there are manifestations during intercourse to predict the genderness of a child if ever fertilization will happen? Like for instance, i want to have a baby boy, are there techniques to produce such sex?

Thanks. Im looking forward for your response.

Respectfully, Omeng

I'm afraid you've come to the wrong place to ask such questions, since this is a discussion place of how the article should look like, not directly about the subject itself. Nevertheless, there are no "natural" ways to alter the gender of a child - IVF expansions are required. Therefore, it is most probably not the technique itself that impedes your request, but the current law dictating the availability of it. Mikael Häggström 09:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Mikael Häggström is correct, but that being said, you may want to look at some articles on the effect of timing of sexual intercourse in relation to the day of ovulation on resulting sex ratio:

• Harlap, 1979 Gender of infants conceived on different days of the menstrual cycle, NEJM
• Wilcox AJ, Weinberg CR, Baird DD. Timing of sexual intercourse in relation to ovulation -- effects on the probability of conception, survival of the pregnancy, and sex of the baby. N Engl J Med 1995;333:1517-1521
• Simpson (1995) Pregnancy and the Timing of Intercourse NEJM 333:1563-1565
• James (1980) Gonadotrophin and the human secondary sex ratio. Br Med J.281(6242): 711–712.

especially if you write up a wikipedia article summarizing them. Pete.Hurd 16:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

sex and intelligence section

Is there anyway to rewrite this section so that it doesn't use the phrase "on the other hand" five times? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.19.31 (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

female default paradigm obsolete?

I read an interesting essay in an anthropological review journal, dated back in 1995, that the 'female default' model was in conflict with recent genetic research. Anyone know anything about this? It was published as "Hormones, Sex, and Gender" by Carol M. Worthman, and appeared in Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 24, (1995), pp. 593-617. Specifically, on pages 603-04, she states:

"Females were viewed as the developmental default because female development was found to proceed independent of the presence of ovaries and because absence of a Y chromosome, and therefore of TDF, T, and MIF, led to female outcomes (formation of ovaries, retention of female and loss of male internal genitalia, development of external genitalia).

Recent genetic findings complicate this view and render the female default model obsolete: Specific genetic factors are involved in the early differentiation of each sex. Identification and sequencing of the mammalian TDF gene, known as SRY, on the Y chromosome, has led to rapid expansion in concepts of early sex development. Evidence for the role of SRY in testis differentiation came from observations of female mice with Y chromosomes carrying mutant Sry, and of male development in XX mice transgenic for Sry. But then, XX men lacking SRY were also identified. Genetic analyses suggest the role of another, autosomal gene, Z, that suppresses male sex determination."

I also did some searching and found one on brain development called "Default is not in the female, but in the theory". ([7]). Excerpt: "Yet researchers have previously suggested that estrogen (presumably of ovarian origin) may play an active role in feminization of the brain (e.g., D ¨ ohler 1991; D ¨ ohler et al. 1984b; Hendricks 1992; Toran-Allerand 1976; 1992). Toran-Allerand, for example, performed a series of in vitro studies in 1976 and concluded that 'these . . . experiments suggest . . . that no pattern of sexual differentiation need necessarily be intrinsic to nervous tissue but that male and female patterns may both require active induction by steroid'"

Also, check out this link: [8]

This paradigm (female default) is also questioned in Anne Fausto-Sterling's book, Myths of gender : biological theories about women and men. The argument being that the fetus is in a bath of hormones from the mother, and female development could not proceed without these.

Perhaps the opposition to the female-default theory deserves a mention? Thoughts?

EDIT: Found another in relation to Wnt4, which is needed to produce a functioning female. It's in a science journal: Pascal Bernarda and Vincent R. Harley. Wnt4 action in gonadal development and sex determination. The International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology. Volume 39, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 31-43. Point 2.1 of the article suggests, as it reads, "2.1. The loss of Wnt4 causes partial female-to-male sex-reversal". StacyMJC (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Some people find knocking down strawmen more exciting than others. It makes a bold article to criticize an exaggerated or mis-applied version of an old paradigm. The author gets to pose as revolutionary, cutting edge, etc. It's been obvious to anyone knowledgeable about the subject for decades that females are not just un-virilized males. In the last 15 years specfic genes involved in ovary formation and various aspects of female differentiation have been discovered. Such were expected all along. The unpredicted surprise has been the gradual understanding of the dose-dependent nature of the effects of some of the key genes. The female-default paradigm is still a useful heuristic for understanding the clinically significant disturbances of male differentiation. Ironically, the complexity and plasticity of human psyches and the large overlaps between male and female behaviors and personalities is what allows many people with defects of male differentiation to function as females. I agree, the article could be updated with the newer genetic findings, though none none of them has disproved any of the "bare bones" descriptions of the processes described in the earlier versions of this article. Go ahead. alteripse (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the fact that a female can become masculine if certain genes are affected debunk this though?

Psychological and behavioral differentiation - lacks citation and questionable adherence to NPOV

I see some problems with the section "Psychological and behavioral differentiation."

Human adults and children show many psychological and behavioral sex differences, both dichotomous and dimorphic. Some (e.g., dress) are learned and obviously cultural. Others are demonstrable across cultures and may have both biological and learned determinants. For example, girls are, on average, more verbally fluent than boys, but males, on average, are better at spatial calculation. Because we cannot explore hormonal influences on human behavior experimentally, and because potential political implications are so unwelcome to many factions of society, the relative contributions of biological factors and learning to human psychological and behavioral sex differences (especially gender identity, role, and orientation) remain unsettled and controversial.

This paragraph lacks citations for the claims it makes about gender differences. Later in the section the claim about verbal fluency is attributed to a book, but I do think reference to a scientific paper would be more appropriate. The last sentence in the paragraph suggests the political standpoint that "political correctness" is in the way of research about gender differences, as opposed to the counter-claim that much research on the subject is non-objective and used to reinforce regressive social beliefs. "Many factions" is used as an anonymous boogeyman to avoid discussing the nature of criticism, and it begs the question of how these factions are acting to prevent research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.208.93 (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Verbal girls vs. spatial boys - no evidence cited; removal suggested

The article reads: "For example, girls are, on average, more verbally fluent than boys, but males, on average, are better at spatial calculation"

The article fails to provide evidence for this claim. It should be removed as it is not supported by evidence.

94.212.246.63 (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

There is substantial empirical evidence for this. Will provide sources shortly. Memills (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Good to see you added some references, however you are not referencing original work. Perhaps you can cite the original sources and not books that cite them. 94.212.246.63 (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:Primary recommends the use of secondary over primary sources. Memills (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Sexual differentiation in humans

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Merge proposed on Talk:Sexual differentiation in humans --LT910001 (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hatnote

There is currently a hatnote on this article linking to Sexual differentiation in humans. According to Wikipedia's editing guideline about hatnotes linking to articles that are related to the topic, there should be no hatnotes on this article because hatnotes "are not intended to link to topics that are simply related to each other, or to a specific aspect of a general topic". This hatnote simply serves as an inappropriately placed "See also" section and it should be removed. Neelix (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

As you know, I already replied when reverting you, as seen here, here and here. Like the lead of WP:Hatnote currently states, "Hatnotes help readers locate a different article they might be seeking. Readers may have arrived at the article containing the hatnote because they were redirected, because the sought article uses a more specific, disambiguated title, or because the sought article and the article with the hatnote have similar names. Hatnotes provide links to the possibly sought article or to a disambiguation page." And that is further elaborated on lower on the WP:Hatnote page, and is exactly why the Sexual differentiation in humans link should be in a WP:Hatnote at the top of the Sexual differentiation article; in other words, there can be no doubt that the vast majority of readers will be looking for sexual differentiation information about humans when they come to the Sexual differentiation article. If you are going to debate a clearly appropriate WP:Hatnote, then I suggest you go ahead and ask editors at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote to weigh in on this matter or go ahead and start a WP:RfC, because I won't be budging on this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I agree that a hatnote is useful. Per hatnote: "Hatnotes help readers locate a different article they might be seeking... or because the sought article and the article with the hatnote have similar names". --LT910001 (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

We could also add a specific section "in humans" that then points to the main article. That would be both clear to readers, and neither have a hatnote nor a hidden-away see also link.--LT910001 (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as you know, here (in my "01:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)" post), I suggested that we create a Humans section and then add a link in that section to the article specifically about humans. Flyer22 (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I would be very glad to see the hatnote at the top of the article replaced by a section about humans specifically that includes the hatnote in that section. If that is what you are suggesting, let's do it. Neelix (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I will endeavor to properly source the information in these articles over the next 1-2 weeks, and during that time I will add a section relating to the uniqueness of humans pointing to the article Sexual differentiation in humans. Other users are, of course, welcome to contribute. --LT910001 (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Per the above discussion, I have started the "Humans" section and moved the hatnote there. Neelix (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for acting on this. --LT910001 (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That section should be significantly reduced into two or three small summary paragraphs. It's too big, and looks bigger than it actually is from the table of contents because of the unnecessary number of subheadings (some of which that conflict with MOS:PARAGRAPH's view that "[s]hort paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I have shortened the "Humans" section as you suggested, largely by removing unsourced content. Neelix (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Sections to transfer

I have transferred some sections from here to Sexual differentiation in humans but been as cautious as I can be to retain sections that relate to all animals. I'd like to ask if there are any other sections still here that relate specifically to humans? In particular, does 'brain development', 'breast development' and 'defeminisation and masculinisation' refer primarily to humans? I would also enthusiastically support if these sections were retained and reworded so that they are less human-centric.--LT910001 (talk) 07:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

1. 1 Chromosomal sex differences
2. 2 Gonadal differentiation
3. 3 Hormonal differentiation
4. 4 Sex organs
5. 5 Breast differentiation
6. 6 Hair differentiation
7. 7 Brain differentiation
8. 8 Defeminization and masculinization

Broadening the focus

I'd be very grateful if there was another animal-inclined editor who could help me reword this article so that it is less human-centric, which is related to the request for comments above. --LT910001 (talk) 07:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

New information added/moved

Hi all! As part of a graduate level biology class, I will be updating this page, and intend to take suggestions above into consideration as I de-anthropomorphize this page. I removed the following sections from the lead due to lack of citations.

Sex differences range greatly and include physiologically differentiating. Sex-dichotomous differences are developments which are wholly characteristic of one sex only. Examples of sex-dichotomous differences include aspects of the sex-specific genital organs such as ovaries, a uterus or a phallic urethra. In contrast, sex-dimorphic differences are matters of degree (e.g., size of phallus). Some of these (e.g., stature, behaviors) are mainly statistical, with much overlap between male and female populations.

Nevertheless, even the sex-dichotomous differences are not absolute in the human population, and there are individuals who are exceptions (e.g., XY males with a uterus; undeveloped testes), or phenotypical females with an XY karyotype (undeveloped reproductive organs), or who exhibit biological and/or behavioral characteristics of both sexes.

Sex differences may be induced by specific genes, by hormones, by anatomy, or by social learning. Some of the differences are entirely physical (e.g., presence of a uterus) and some differences are just as obviously purely a matter of social learning and custom (e.g., relative hair length). Many differences, though, such as gender identity, appear to be influenced by both biological and social factors ("nature" and "nurture").

Pktka (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Pktka, regarding this, you need to keep MOS:HEAD and WP:Tone in mind. For example, headings should be in sentence case (generally). Regarding tone, you shouldn't add anything such as "troubling" (like you did in the "Alternative Morphs" section). Also, per WP:Lead, the lead is meant to summarize the article. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, you should generally stick to non-primary sources; see WP:Primary sources. Make sure that you are not engaging in synthesis (see WP:Synthesis) or adding undue weight (see WP:Undue weight). Per MOS:REFPUNCT, punctuation comes before the references (generally). You shouldn't create an empty section even if you plan to fill in the section later. Regarding deleting material, see WP:Preserve.

I know that you are a WP:Student editor. It would have been better for you to link to your sandbox here on the talk page and propose changes for feedback from experienced editors before implementing your changes. In addition to me, other editors who can help on a topic such as this are Tom (LT) and Chiswick Chap.

No need to WP:Ping me if you reply since this article is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. And thank you Pktka for editing this page! Overall I find these edits to be of good quality and am thankful they are being included. I will be watching this page. From my point of view the most important thing is that thousands of people will read this page, so it needs to be easy to understand - in general probably around mid high school level is as hard as the text should get. If nobody can understand what is written there is no point writing it in my opinion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Feedback to student editor

Here is some small bits of itemised feedback.

1. "Lability of Sexual Differentiation and Sexual Differentiation Systems" - can you please rename this to something that makes sense to lay readers
2. Extensive hatnotes ("Further..." "See also...") Please trim these and only leave one or, max two, remaining. The rest should be linked to in text
3. "Zhao et al. have shown" Please remove this sentence. It is original research and we should only be including things in reliable secondary sources (WP:MEDRS).
4. Please simplify your language. "Beginning with determination of sex by genetic and/or environmental factors, humans and other organisms proceed down different pathways of differentiation as they grow and develop. These processes are liable to change over one organism's lifetime and/or adapt over an evolutionary timescale[2][3], and are not necessarily as simple as organisms developing into two clearly dimorphic categories". Do you think that you could explain this to an elderly relative, or a 12 to 13 year-old? I'm sure you could, using simpler language that is just as clear. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tom- thank you so much for this itemized feedback! I simplified some of the language that I used and removed the one primary source I cited. Will look back at this and make sure it's readable to a large audience.Pktka (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Pktka! Looking better already. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

May do a rewrite

I’m probably gonna try and rewrite this entire article.CycoMa (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Undifferentiated zygote vs. sexed zygote

I did a rvt[9] on Maneesh's change[10] because "undifferentiated zygote" is the standard description in resources and I couldn't find any resources that say "sexed zygote." If I just didn't see it in Maneesh's resource, A General Theory of Sexual Differentiation, 2017,[11] please point it out. But even if it's in there, a resource that proposes "a general theory of mammalian sexual differentiation" and, as a result, goes against the grain, isn't a more appropriate resource than the many more resources that say "undifferentiated zygote." According to WP:EXCEPTIONAL, we shouldn't go against the grain.

I added two different resources for the beginning line that say "undifferentiated zygote."[12] There's also other ways to describe it. The Encyclopædia Britannica doesn't use "undifferentiated zygote." It says, "Sexual differentiation, in human embryology, the process by which the male and female sexual organs develop from neutral embryonic structures. The normal human fetus of either sex has the potential to develop either male or female organs, depending on genetic and hormonal influences."[13]. GBFEE (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Brain differentiation - independent research and poor citations

Just at quick look of this section: there are at least a few statements and conclusions in the section’s text which are *contradicted* by their reference citations.

Many of the references used to support broad, generalized claims are primary source articles written with the rhetorical feel of niche, activist scholarship. Moreover, these single journal citations make claims which run counter to large, decades-long bodies of established research — this section text essentially ignores.

I’m not actually familiar with the protocol ins-and-outs of collaborating on Wikipedia. And don’t want to step on any toes, here — so just thought I’d leave a note. :) Hedonistbot4000 (talk) 09:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

For example: “thus the brain differences commonly seen as "sex differences" have been instead linked to competition.”

In a sexually dimorphic species: Differences linked to male mate competition, and mating organizational structure — this is causal evidence FOR sex differences. This is literally how sexual selection works to create biological, evolutionary sex differences. I’m confused that the text implies this is counter-evidence Hedonistbot4000 (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)