Talk:Sex/Archive 9

Sources 26 and 27 have flaws and I will admit both sources are clearly political. I mean look at Joan Roughgarden Wikipedia article.

However I am including them in because a lot of things they say do align well what the other sources cited in this article say. They both have PHDs in biology as well, so they know a lot about the topic.

One of them stated there is a general consensus among biologists about anisogamy.(However, some of the language she uses comes off trying to manipulating or trying to mislead, like she talks about different morphs. She mentions how some males are mistaken as females. I have no idea I may need to reread what she says.)

So I’m adding them because here on Wikipedia we are supposed to represent many views on a topic. However I’m marking them as partisan to keep an eye on their reliability.

So yeah

I actually changed my mind, one of the books I cited was literally criticized by 40 scientists. Also also the other source is questionable.

My biggest mistake was that I knew those two sources were problematic.

Sources renumber themselves whenever they are edited, so it would be much better to link the sources you talk about. You appear to be referring to this. I agree that better, mainstream sources should be used for such claims. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Honestly the reason I thought it would be a good idea to add them was because I wanted to show that many of the claims presented in this article are mainstream views.

Like for example, gonochorism being dominant in the animal kingdom is supported by like three sources on this article. I have even seen sources from countries like Japan or India that agree with that notion.

Does anyone know if there are any rules or policies on this?

talk

) 06:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I may replay a few sources cited in this article with better ones. The sources themselves aren’t bad but, it would be a good idea to replace them with way better ones. Like I cited a fish biologist for one paragraph on a topic for plant biology.

Also in that sentence that says 95% of animals are gonochoric. Two of the sources is from plant biologists.

I’m not saying these are bad sources to be exact, it would just be more appropriate to cite biologists in a certain field.

I found out that this book is written by a biologist from a Christian university. I looked through the book and it doesn’t appear that anything presented in the book is pseudoscience. Like this guy does appear to accept evolution as a fact, so he doesn’t appear to be one of those anti-science biologists or anything like that.

I’m just pointing this out just in case someone finds issues with the source.

I found [article] there some facts in it that may be useful.

First it’s states this, “One thing biologists do agree on is that males and females count as different sexes. And they also agree that the main difference between the two is gamete size”

There is also mention this species of ants where a queen has to mate with two males.

I think this source may be useful because it states that most biologists agree on someone and it mentions different view points among biologists. It’s a decade old so I can’t say if everything in it still holds up.

I want to add it but, I don’t know where to put somethings to be honest.

Sorry about that here’s the link. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020183

@

Any reference to hermaphroditism in humans is almost certainly

WP:EXTRAORDINARY terminology and really refers to intersex/DSDs. Crossroads ^-talk-

05:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah found a source that explains rudimentary hermaphroditism. Right here.

talk

) 06:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Wait let me look at that again.

talk

) 06:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

It’s also very unlikely they are claiming humans are

talk

) 06:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah here’s a source stating that rudimentary hermaphroditism occurs in gonochoric species.

Actually I think it would be a better idea to quote what they said.

talk

) 07:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

“Hermaphroditism is the sex condition typical of many seed plants and many invertebrates, but it can also occur as a development anomaly, in many other species, even among the vertebrates, including humans.” (page 122.)

This was stated in this book.

However this is what they said later.

“Different forms of rudimentary hermaphroditism have been described, both in functional gonochoric species belonging to clades where the hermaphrodite position is primitive and in any case dominant, such as the trematodes, and in species belonging to strictly gonochorism clades.” (page 132.)

I don’t know this book does stuff like this. I believe they could be mistaken in some areas.

I may tag other Wikipedians and see what they think.

talk

) 17:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah by the way, I looked the source again and it states humans are gonochoric. The book was merely just using old medical language. I’m commenting this down because I know these discussions are archived.

Could someone with access to the above mentioned source please fix the citation of the chapter on "Body Size and Sexual Dimorphism"? It seems that the author is Robert Cox and that Jae Choe is the editor. The current Google Books link doesn't seem to include the chapter, so it may be in a different edition or volume. In the meantime, are there any other RS to source the claim that most animal species have larger females? It's certainly mentioned in plenty of reliable news sources, but I presume we'd rather have a journal/textbook source. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @

CycoMa: who is using this source to verify the above-mentioned claim, and @Plantsurfer: who is adding a citation needed tag. Firefangledfeathers (talk

) 18:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Oops made a mistake. Do you see it [[1]]?

talk

) 19:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I can! Thank you. On page 9, I'm seeing:

As a very broad generalization, females are larger than males in the majority of animals.

Plantsurfer, do you find that sufficient to remove the citation needed tag? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to fit the bill. But the article does not explain the observable fact that most people will be familiar with the general rule that males are larger in mammals, birds, reptiles and other vertebrates. Species with larger females will be unfamiliar and rarely encountered by the majority of people, so the article needs to explain what kinds of animals have larger females and how these come to be the majority. Plantsurfer 19:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree. There's some good context for that on that same page of the book that we might use. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I may look into why this is the case. (Haven’t found a source that explains why this is the case yet, but it may be have something to due with insects because, like I think I found a source that said the reason 95% of animals are gonochoric is because of insects.) So just give me a moment or two to look into this.

talk

) 05:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

If that is correct, then it is frankly misleading to say the "majority of animals": it would make more sense to refer to insects as the exception. Plantsurfer 13:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

It’s clear that this article is too short. This is weird because this article is one of the most viewed articles on this site and it’s considered a very important article for many wiki projects. Also there are tons of topics not mentioned Things like Sex reversal aren’t mentioned. Secondary sex characteristics aren’t mentioned. Simultaneous hermaphroditism isn’t mentioned. The protist section is ridiculous short.

And so much more, not saying all these topics should have paragraphs but, for a topic that’s considered important and widely viewed its appropriate that these topics should have at least one or two sentences.

It’s clear that this article is too short. This is weird because this article is one of the most viewed articles on this site and it’s considered a very important article for many wiki projects. Also there are tons of topics not mentioned Things like Sex reversal aren’t mentioned. Secondary sex characteristics aren’t mentioned. Simultaneous hermaphroditism isn’t mentioned. The protist section is ridiculous short.

And so much more, not saying all these topics should have paragraphs but, for a topic that’s considered important and widely viewed its appropriate that these topics should have at least one or two sentences.

I may have done some citation overkill and honestly that’s my fault. I wanted to prove that the claims presented in this article are mainstream views among biologists.

At this point it’s very obvious that many of the claims presented in this article are mainstream views among biologists. So I may go through the article and remove some sources.

There is considerable repetition in this article. The most egregious example is the repetition between the second paragraph of "overview" and the first of "Sexual reproduction". These sections need to be merged and edited into a single section. I suggest that it would be out of place in Overview, because that section should be an overview of Sex, not an overview of Sexual reproduction, which is another article. I would be happy to do this if other editors agree. Plantsurfer 11:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

That’s fine by me.

talk

) 12:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually the more I think about the more I think that’s not the best idea. I may remove some bits and there. But, not too sure about merging overview and sexual reproduction.

talk

) 18:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not suggesting merging all of it, only the bits where there is clear repetition. Plantsurfer 18:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually scrolling through the article the overview section doesn’t really have much purpose so I wouldn’t mind it being gone.

talk

) 19:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The first two sentences of this section add up to complete nonsense and attention needs to be given to the clarification template. What is "this is true" referring to?? I suspect you are thinking of hermaphroditism, but that is not stated. Plantsurfer 09:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I suspect the reason that sentence is there is because someone used one of the books in further reading but didn’t add a citation.

talk

) 12:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I may take a look at the books those books but that may take a very long while.

talk

) 12:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I have removed some sources because they repeating things other sources already said.

Don’t worry people I’ll put them back in later but, I will use them for a different purpose.

Like the book on Evolution of Sex determination will come in handy for sex determination.

Unfortunately I can’t access many of the sources on google books and I don’t wanna spend to much money. Unfortunately I can’t tell what claims where presented in those books because no one cited the pages, I can’t go to resource request. Good news for me I have tons of free time tomorrow. Luckily I have a library in my area.

Also it’s weird people would add a further reading section and not cite where they got the information from. It’s hard to verify the claims presented.

Just 3 more removed sources to put back.

I'm not particularly interested in entomology, and I've never done my own OR to see the exact mechanics of how certain insects mate, but something about this sentence bugs [*ahem*] me: "A few insects reproduce through

• insertion into genetalia
• piercing an exoskeleton
• piercing an abdomen

Indeed, Wikipedia's traumatic insemination article says "the male pierces the female's abdomen with his aedeagus." To the extent that statement is accurate, this article might need to reflect similar phrasing. Additionally, this article's assertion that "In species that mate this way, too much mating can harm the females" seems to be an understatement; "can harm" should probably read "harms," right? Comments, Plantsurfer? Is there a Bugsurfer? --Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The source from nature says that too much mating can cause harm to the female. And the source from nature says that the males pierces the skin(just calling it that for simplicity.)

It’s basically just a brief mention of it. There is already an article that goes further in depend on the subject.

talk

) 23:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't doubt what the source says. I'm questioning the source's semantic

WP:Reliability concerning "can harm" versus "harms." As an editor, my instinct is to emend the statement according to common sense; i.e. piercing an exoskeleton/abdomen seems intrinsically harmful rather than probably harmful. Again, I'm no bug expert. Maybe some bugs can re-grow the pierced part(s) with little or no harm. If there's an insertion rather than a piercing, then my point is moot. --Kent Dominic·(talk)

01:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Is the sentence being discussed in this thread really relevant to the subject of this article? It's more relevant to animal sexual behaviour or copulation (zoology). Just remove it. Plantdrew (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Plantdrew well the sentence is a section about sexual reproduction in animals so basically it is.

It’s basically supposed to be a brief explanation on the topic.

Not sure why Kent is rambling on about this.

talk

) 04:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Kent Dominic sure it’s very obvious why piercing a female skins is harmful but there is already an article on this so I don’t think there should be too much of an explanation.

Unless maybe another sentence or two could fix things up.

talk

) 04:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: I have the same question, but I'm predisposed to letting stuff like that go rather than deleting it or merging it, esp. absent discussion. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 05:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@

CycoMa

:

1. You're only peripherally right about the sentence's relevance. A close call, but I'd side with removing it. As mentioned above, I typically leave such stuff to other editors.
2. You might want to run words like "rambling" through the
   administrative timeout. (Admin. has already taken notice of posts like this.
   )
3. I don't think the "can harm" sentence is problematic per se. Instead, it's either (a) obviously and pathetically banal for the reasons you mentioned - and therefore needlessly included in this article, or (b) it's counterfactual if regeneration is involved. Frankly speaking, I really don't give an at's rass (my favorite spoonerism) about it, which goes to show that the whole treatment is further afield from the article than merits even a passing mention in a topic relating to "a trait that determines an individual's reproductive function," not reproductive sex acts, and not insect love. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 05:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Honest I support the sentence being there, this article touches on sex from various species. It’s appropriate to mention weird ways of sexual reproduction like that.

I’m eventually gonna add Male seahorses getting pregnant soon to this article and adding on protists.

I don’t see any reason to remove it entirely. I could edit the sentence for you and add a little more to it if you want?

talk

) 06:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I’m honestly not sure about it’s removal to be honest, me personally I want this to an long article since this article is one of the most viewed articles on the site and is a very important article in many wiki projects.

talk

) 06:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@

The sentence strays outside the topic of the article, imho. This article is about sex, (male, female, sexual dimorphism, sex determination, etc.) not about sexual reproduction. Weird methods of copulation (which are legion) are beyond its scope - observe the hatnote. Leave it out. Plantsurfer 12:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 16:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

No, Chlorophyta are green algae, definitely not Protozoa. Just for information, who are "some sources"? Plantsurfer 18:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Also I disagree with the whole idea of mentioning weird methods of sexual reproduction being out of the scope of this article. Sure males stabbing females with their penises doesn’t deserve a paragraph, since there is already an article on that topic. But I do think at least one sentence is good enough as a mention.

talk

) 18:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I do agree with y’all that giving a entire long paragraphs on sexual reproduction would be inappropriate for this article.

So on this article we should just mention the basic aspects, if there are some weird cases they should have just one or two sentences.

At times I think me and other editors at times get a little carried away with wanting to add tons of facts and paragraphs on a single topic for an article that touches on many subjects.

An edit that contains a quoted source is not, in itself, an unassailable rationale for including the edit in an article. The source itself must be reliable and stated in a comprehensible manner. Citing the source in an article must entail contextual relevancy. The cite itself need not be a direct quotation from the source material. Rigorous efforts should be made at emendations of the wording regarding the source material to ensure appropriate use in the article. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 05:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I put quotes down if a certain sentence may be confusing. Like the sentence on intermediate gametes being lost would be confusing to an average reader so I thought the sources explained the topic a lot better.

That is also the case for the sentence saying all the differences between the sexes stem from a difference in gametes.

talk

) 05:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

While we are on the topic of sources, my personal preference is to not have citations in the lead, given that lead topics are (or should be) more fully discussed and cited in the body of the article. see MOS:LEADCITE, where it outlines that this principle needs to be considered on a case by case basis and a consensus reached among editors. What say you all? Plantsurfer 11:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 12:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Plantsurfer, I hadn't known about MOS:LEADCITE, but I had otherwise advocated that very brand of common sense, contrary to the taste of too many other editors here. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 01:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Like the whole dispute about the first sentence we had a month ago. Until scientists come to a consensus on an exact definition of sex our current definition is based on combining sources.

The closest consensus to there being a consensus on sex is that many biologists agree gametes are the fundamental differences between the sexes.

talk

) 12:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

you keep saying that, but it is really little more than a statement of the obvious. Plantsurfer 13:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep in mind that wasn’t common sense to me until recently. Actually much of the information in here wasn’t common sense to me until this year. But anyway my point is that there are some situations where sources may need to be in a lead.

Also sorry if I come off as repetitive on the things I say, I’m just trying my best to contribute to Wikipedia and making sure mainstream views are being represented fairly.

• I strongly recommend not removing the citations from the lead. This is not an entirely non-controversial subject (amongst people who are confused about biology and are being anthropocentric) and they prevent people from trying to place undue weight on fringe theories, as has happened in the past. This is in line with what
  WP:LEADCITE recommends in cases like this. Crossroads ^-talk-
  04:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads well many of the claims presented in this article are clearly not controversial among mainstream biologists. (Although they may disagree on many things, such as the evolution of sexual reproduction) I haven’t found any mainstream biologists saying that dioecy doesn’t exist.

Although the claim that humans are gonochoric may come off as controversial to you know who.

So yeah you kind of have a point.

talk

) 14:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@

CycoMa:, it's not only about whether they are controversial among biologists; there's also the issue of whether they are controversial among editors. If removing the citations tends to result in more strife or edit-warring, or even just more discussion, then it's worth keeping them just to avoid that, even if the claims are non-controversial among biologists. Mathglot (talk

) 00:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@

list of topics subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions. Since this fits that profile, I wouldn't be in favor of removing citations from the lead in this particular article. Mathglot (talk

) 01:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 02:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Not gonna lie there were a lot of things I had to remove from this article, that I honestly feel guilty for removing. But, I removed them because my logical side knew they were problematic.

Like I had to remove this one book written by a transgender biologists, but I removed because I knew that it was criticized by over 40 scientists. I even removed a source from the further reading section because I knew the claims didn’t align with more reliable source.(Not to mention it clearly went against mainstream biology.)

I guess that’s the hard part of being a Wikipedian, you have to know what sources are reliable and which ones aren’t.

talk

) 02:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for @Mathglot, since it was misspelled above. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The section on Sexual reproduction is a bit all over the place. I have already (unsuccessfully) pointed to the fact that paragraphs on isogamy/anisogamy appear both in Evolution and in Sexual reproduction. They need to be brought together as a single statement. Then in Animals the first sentence of the third paragraph is talking about oviparity without mentioning the term, while the third sentence in that paragraph appears to contradict it by referring to mammalian development in which nutrients are supplied directly by the mother. Oviparity and viviparity need to be clearly presented and clearly separated. Plantsurfer 10:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Plantsurfer, so far, my editing has been piecemeal-oriented to semantics. I've had only an inkling of the continuity issues as so many of the one-line observations seem disjointed. Why don't you have a go at bringing in some fluidity? I'll only assist as needed. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Plantsurfer

That one paragraph on anisogamy/isogamy was about how anisogamy evolved, how it might evolve in the future, and how it’s viewed as the evolution of male and female.

So I’m not sure that paragraph belongs in sexual reproduction.

I agree with you on separating oviparity and viviparity.

talk

) 14:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 15:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@

CycoMa there are not one but two paragraphs on anisogamy/isogamy - that is the point of my edit that you reverted. One is in Evolution, one is in Sexual reproduction. It looks like repetition. I think the two should be brought together. Plantsurfer

17:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@

CycoMa, EVERY edit - by its very definition - changes the meaning of the text in some way. If you think a change fails to improve a given meaning, please bring it up for discussion here to let others weigh in. --Kent Dominic·(talk)

06:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Plantsurfer, I also share your concerns about this section, and would support some major changes. I would add that it is overlong; there are obvious, important connections between sexual reproduction and sex, but we should summarize as much as possible and refer to the main article. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@

CycoMa, and given his refusal to see my point, there is a risk that I might start an edit war, and I am reluctant to go there. The bit about anisogamy/isogamy in Evolution precedes the explanation of what anisogamy is in the subsequent section. That is clearly back to front. But changes to this now need the clear consensus of the active editors. Plantsurfer

09:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Plantsurfer I can understand your point, an average reader probably doesn’t know what anisogamy or isogamy are. But the reason I put those there is because sources like this and this have said the evolution of anisogamy is viewed as the evolution of male and female sexes, since this article about those it’s only logical to put it there.

Maybe we could add a note to that paragraph say,”the article on anisogamy and isogamy explain what they are” or “the section on sexual reproduction explains what anisogamy and isogamy are.”

Or we can explain what anisogamy and isogamy are in the lead.

Or may we could write it like this.

Anisogamy(gametes differing in size) most likely evolved from isogamy(gametes similar in size), but its evolution has left no fossil evidence.[11] The evolution of anisogamy is viewed as the origin of male and female sexes.[12]

Which option seems best?

talk

) 17:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

However, I don’t want this article to be too repetitive on the same topics.

Like in earlier versions of this article it was very unnecessary to have a overview section.

talk

) 17:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Plantsurfer I think you are missing the context of those two paragraphs. One paragraph is about the evolution of anisogamy, it’s evolution being viewed as the origin of the sexes. While the other paragraph is explaining what it is.

I moved a paragraph from sex determination because it addressed the evolution and didn’t belong down there.

There is another sentence in the sex differences section, the purpose for that sentence is state it is the main difference.

talk

) 18:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

But anyway I think you have a point the sexual reproduction section does need some work. There are things unorganized and unsourced statements.

talk

) 21:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

________

Removed sentence

Responding here to a question from CycoMa initially posted at my user talk page:

Hey I noticed you removed this sentence from sex. I was thinking about reverting your edit but I thought it would be a better idea to ask you why you removed it?CycoMa (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC) (reply)

In this edit, I removed a sentence saying Note, male and female are usually defined by reproductive strategies rather than physiological characteristics. I find it doesn't belong where it was, between a sentence describing the conventional definition of the sexes based on gametes and a sentence clarifying the special case of hermaphroditic species. It might belong in another section, where it should probably be rephrased to cover the source's statement that defining sex based on reproductive strategies would be more useful, not that it's usual. As is, the sentence contradicts other statements in our article that sex is primarily defined by gamete production, a physiological characteristic. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers I can understand why you would think it contradicts how male and female are defined but this is what the source says.

In the source it says.

”The size of the gametes is the most direct means of differentiating between sexes. By definition, male gametes are smaller, and female gametes are larger (see Verma 2019). Individuals producing smaller gametes are defined as males, and individuals producing larger gametes are defined as female. Sex determination mechanisms are more stable among mammals and birds and far more variable among many marine taxa, with genes, environment, and epigenetics determining and reversing sex across numerous gonochoristic fish species (see Baroiller and D’Cotta 2016). However, it should be noted that male and female sex are more usefully defined by reproductive strategy, rather than by immutable physiological characteristics (Schärer 2017). In this way, males and females occupy distinct reproductive niches that reflect the combination of their asymmetrical gametes and results in a cascade of sex differ- ences, such as in morphology and behavior (see Eberhard 1996; Trivers 1972).”

So their definition of male and female does align with the rest of the article.

talk

) 05:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for quoting and linking, so others can quickly catch up on the relevant content; I have already read it. I don't think "usually" is a good replacement for "more usefully" in this context and would insist on that being changed if we reintroduce the sentence. To emphasize part of my earlier point: as it was, the sentence was contradicting other statements in the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I should make an obvious statement about this, things like labels and classifications are merely a human creation. Things in nature don’t have labels attached to them. So off course scientific classifications may not be 100% presided.

talk

) 05:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Given this article's high volume of regularly added and edited (and deleted and restored) material, editors might seriously consider vetting changes on this talk page before haphazardly posting them in the article. It's certain to save a load of time, effort, and needless back-and-forth. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 06:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey can you stop reverting my edit at the intersex edit. All the sources literally say that’s what intersex is mate.

talk

) 13:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain how their edit goes against the source? Equivamp - talk 13:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 14:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Fix what? It's more concise. I know that in the past you've struggled with the idea of concision being used on source text, but that's what we're supposed to do here. --Equivamp - talk 14:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Equivamp, You're right - concision is all I was after. Confession: I wrongfully presumed the intersex article here was generic in the manner used in this article, but that's not the case; it's limited to human intersex. So, this article's link (both textually and via hypertext) to that intersex article was problematic, and my intention with the edit was doomed. I've since deleted the link and the verbiage that make the unwarranted connection. Without taking a position on what ensues, either the intersex article needs expansion to include other species or the Sex characteristics section here needs clarification to avoid conflation with the notion of "intersex" as characterized in the respective Wikipedia article. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 14:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Equivamp okay but no source uses language like “intersex characteristics”, also in Kent’s edit summary he said this “ concision: remedied redundant verbiage (i.e. "inter-" means "both;" "sex" is defined in the lead)” He is doing original research by analyzing the words.

That goes against what the sources say on the matter. Intersex doesn’t mean they are both sexes, it basically means they have both sex characteristics.(The definition I’m using is the basic definition by the way.) Hermaphrodite means they are both male and female.

Intersex organisms aren’t hermaphrodites. Two sources literally say intersex applies to gonochoric species.

Language or grammar doesn’t or what certain parts in a word mean don’t always matter. I mean the country of Greenland implies it’s a green country (when it clearly isn’t).

Sorry typos I was typing too fast.

But anyway what source uses language like intersex characteristics?

A search for "intersex characteristics" on Google scholar turns up 558 results for me, some referring to humans and some referring to other animals. But I'm not overly interested in quibbling over that phrasing with you. I see that it's been changed again - are you satisfied with the phrasing now? --Equivamp - talk 15:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Equivamp I’m happy with the current edit. Also I should state this, that paragraph is referring to the biological view on the subject. The thing you popped up are mostly from medical or sociological sources.

Not saying they are wrong it’s just different fields of academia don’t always agree on the same subject. Especially with regards to this topic.(Trust me you would be surprised.)

talk

) 15:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 03:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, considering that DSDs/intersex conditions are primarily a medical topic, I am hardly surprised. --Equivamp - talk 19:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I am thinking about adding adding a behavioral differences in the sex difference section. But, not sure if it’s the best idea or not.

A brief mention is probably warranted, but extended discussion is probably better suited for the Sexual dimorphism article or another. --Equivamp - talk 19:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking that too, nothing too long maybe just about like 4 or 6 sentences.

But, I am kind of struggling with which sources are ideal for a section like that.

talk

) 19:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@

child article. Given that, you could take one or two of the most reliable, weighty sources from the child, and reuse them here. Keep it quite brief, though, and try to summarize just the main point of the child; anyone who's interested in more detail, can just click through the {{Main}} link. Mathglot (talk

) 01:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Mathglot didn’t say it would be long. It will probably just be about maybe 10 or 6 sentences long.

Also I’m thinking about mentioning it here since there are reliable sources touching on the topic.

talk

) 01:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

You could write the longer version first and then summarize it here, is what I think Mathglot is getting at. --Equivamp - talk 01:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Editors may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively. The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia. - 
WP:DE

Everyone has a limited sphere of competence. For example, someone may be competent in [glossing copious amounts of literature about sex in sexually reproducing organisms] but incompetent in [consistent creation of semantically accurate and topically relevant syntax in encyclopedia style] ... Some otherwise competent people may lack the skills necessary to edit Wikipedia. Rather than labeling them as "incompetent" in the pejorative sense we should ease them out of the Wikipedia community as graciously as possible, with their dignity intact. - 
WP:COMPETENCE

When all else fails: Sanctions such as blocks and bans are always considered a last resort where all other avenues of correcting problems have been tried and have failed. Before bringing an issue to the incidents noticeboard or another similar venue, you should have exhausted all reasonable attempts to communicate with the user and correct their behavior. Use their talk page, explain things to them, and demonstrate how to do things correctly. On rare occasions, however, after a pattern of behavior has been well established and a user shows they are unlikely to do things correctly, a block, topic ban, or full ban may be the only solutions that minimize disruption to the encyclopedia. - 
Ibid

Each of this article's five mentions of "usually" are disturbing as a

Among those 13 synonyms, naturally, customarily, familiarly, conventionally, and traditionally are contextually at odds with the 5 mentions of "usually," but the remaining 8 synonyms are ripe candidates for substitution on a case-by-case analysis. E.g. "Animals are usually mobile and seek out a partner of the opposite sex for mating" becomes "Animals generally seek out a partner of the opposite sex for mating." The observation about mobility is contextually superfluous/off topic. Indeed the entire sentence bears consideration for deletion as as an off-topic comment about a sexual habit rather than "a trait that determines an individual's reproductive function, male or female," as established by the lead.

Eight of the article's nine mentions of "all" are disturbing as they categorically exclude alternative conclusions. E.g.:

• "All mammals (except Monotremes) are viviparous" is an overstatement regardless of whether it's an accurate reflection of any source. Neutral alternatives: "All knownmammals (except Monotremes) are viviparous" or "All [M]ammals (except Monotremes) are always known to be viviparous."
• "Many reptiles, including all crocodiles and most turtles, have temperature-dependent sex determination."

Speaking as a reader rather than as an editor, none of the article's sentences containing "usually" or "all" satisfies my standards for burden of proof notwithstanding whatever a given source alleges. I'm not champing at the bit to make the edits as indicated above, and I'd rather someone else take the initiative to accordingly clean up this troublesome aspect of the article. I didn't check the article for categorical statements of negation, but if there's a sentence like, "No egg cells are produced outside the ovaries," it warrants appropriate editing. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 02:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 02:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Plantsurfer: I'm no logophile, but semantics fascinates me. Accordingly, IMHO "free-living protozoa ... usually reproduce asexually unless ... the environment experiences drastic changes" isn't fairly subject to objection on grounds that "the environment is insensate, thus incapable of experiencing anything." Philosophically you're right, but I think the prior wording entailed a semantically fine use of an ergative verb. (Trivia: One of my students claimed that it's wrong to say "the car crashed" or "the window broke" - since cars and windows are inanimate and thus incapable of effecting the given actions - versus "the driver crashed the car" or "the baseball hit by the child broke the window." Philosophical point taken but no semantic points scored.) Your "unless ... the environment changes drastically" is more concise but still entails ergativity albeit in a more innocuous way.

Contextually speaking, my issue with the above sentence relates solely to the word, "changes." Since change can be favorable or unfavorable, and the context clearly indicates unfavorable change, I think "unless ... the environment declines drastically" is more appropriate. On second thought, "unless ... the environment deteriorates drastically" is probably even better.

Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 03:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for @Plantsurfer:. KD, you used the wrong brackets. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Oops. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 03:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I was the one who introduced "environment experiences" and don't mind Plantsurfer's tweak. Thanks for teaching me about ergative verbs! Does the linked paper certainly mean "change" in an unfavorable sense? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Kent Dominic the source said this,

”or when environmental conditions change radically.”

talk

) 03:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: This article contains numerous unfortunate instances of unedited attribution to source language. If you agree that we should apply a higher editing standard here than the standard evident in the source, then "deteriorates" is a no-brainer. Can you think of an example, sourced or otherwise, where "free-living protozoa ... usually reproduce asexually unless food is scarce or the environment improves drastically"? --Kent Dominic·(talk) 05:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

No, I definitely can't think of an example. If it helps, here's some wild speculation: perhaps some protozoa are sensitive to large changes in temperature and respond to those changes by reproducing sexually. They might thrive equally well at different temperatures, such that determining whether the change was an improvement or deterioration is impossible. My lack of knowledge on the matter means I can't rule that out. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I have an idea what that whole intermediate gamete in the sentence means, I may just need to reword it and bit. Just not sure what I should reword it to be honest.

I know I went overboard on the whole tag in that sentence, all four of those sources in that sentence say the same thing. It’s just I don’t expect most readers to source through chapters just to find that fact.

By hard-won consensus, the lead establishes this article's topic as "a trait that determines an individual's reproductive function, male or female, in animals and plants that propagate their species through sexual reproduction." The following items, glossed from the article, are compendium of content that is off-topic according to the lead:

• Evolution (the entire section); Main article: Evolution of sexual reproduction.
• Sexual reproduction (the entire section) except Isogamy and Anisogamy; Main article: Sexual reproduction.
• Animals (the entire section); Main article:
  Sexual reproduction in animals
  .

To reiterate: None of the above content topically comports with the lead. A brief mention of the content, with links to the relevant main articles, seems a reasonable way to restrict this article's text to its stated topic. The page currently stands at 77,493 bytes. One particular editor expressed an intention to expand the article to 100,000 bytes. Those added contributions might be better placed in the relevant collateral articles.
Any consensus on deletion/migration? --Kent Dominic·(talk) 02:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah you are referring to me, also I am very sorry how I have been acting.

Also are you planning on deleting this article or deleting a certain part? I mean seriously what makes you think there is a consensus on this?

talk

) 02:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey

talk

) 02:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose deletion.

talk

) 02:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Also did you read the [policy?]

talk

) 03:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Also I must ask you, did you even read the sources provided in the article?

talk

) 03:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually here’s a link to [policy.]

talk

) 03:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I am 100% sure that Kent Dominic isn't proposing full deletion of this article, so we don't need to quote the deletion policy. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers I wouldn’t mind moving somethings here or there or shortening things down. But, deleting the entire article is ridiculous. I mean the topic the article presents is mainstream among various fields.

Also the article doesn’t meet any of the criteria.

talk

) 03:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, they are for sure not proposing to delete the whole article. Let's keep it focused on whether we support the proposed changes and if so, how best to implement them. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers, I wonder if I could have made it clearer: The three bulleted sections may be ripe for deletion/movement/summary, not the entire article. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 03:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I read you pretty clearly, but I think it's fair for editors who've worked hard on an article to respond quickly and strongly to the word "delete"! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

(*Ahem*) ... deleted from this article and moved, migrated, consolidated or whatever regarding the main articles mentioned. I do believe in virgules. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 04:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you want to move exactly, and I haven't been keeping up on all the details. Per WP:Summary style, we should be summarizing the main points of these more detailed articles (or what should be their main points, anyway). Crossroads ^-talk- 03:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 03:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree about summary style. Kent Dominic, I support the general idea and think it should probably also apply to §Sex determination. In addition to summarizing the main articles, this article should cover the ways in which sex interacts with or is understood in those topics (to the credit of many other editors working on this article, much of the current content sticks at least loosely to that goal). I want to resurrect a point made by @Mathglot: about a month ago, namely that we should treat this page as a WP:Broad-concept article that covers the basics and directs readers toward other articles with more specifics. We have some well-sourced specifics here that we should take care to merge into the main articles as appropriate. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 03:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

While I disagree with you, I can definitely see where you're coming from. It will be valuable, I think, to have participation from both editors who advocate for expansion (as you have done) and those who are pushing for more summary. You may want to sit back for a little while to give other editors time to explain why they think this is a good idea. PS: I prefer not to be pinged in conversations I've very recently participated in. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Seconded. That makes three. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 04:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I mean do agree that a few things should be placed somewhere else. Like I think some editors went a little overboard but putting every topic in here. Especially in the sexual reproduction section.

talk

) 03:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Also I should say this, I have been expanding a lot on this article because it’s considered top importance to many wikiprojects and one of the most viewed articles. So it’s only fair to show the complexities of sex.

talk

) 03:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 04:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Like the subsection on Angiosperms is kind of long.

talk

) 04:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I mean articles like

I’m just cut out the useless stuff and keep the basic stuff in.

I’m gonna keep some things here like what sequential hermaphroditism is.

I’m also gonna keep in brief examples in here as well, like the example of this one cactus species being trioecous, temperature sex determination in turtles, or brief mentions of a topic.
talk
) 05:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Also don’t remove the part on the evolution of anisogamy because it’s viewed as the evolutionary origin of the sexes.

I’m gonna keep these in

“ Even fungi that are anisogamous are all hermaphroditic.[53]

Fungi may have more complex allelic mating systems and many species of fungi have two mating types.[54] However, Coprinellus disseminatus has been estimated to have about 123 mating types, and in some species there are even thousands of mating types.[52] For example, Schizophyllum commune has about 28,000 or more mating types.[55]”

Because I want to show how some species can have thousands of mating types.

@

CycoMa: Maybe you should wait to remove things while discussion is ongoing. Also, please try to consolidate your responses into fewer, less-frequent ones, because its going to make it take longer for editors to read this and contribute. Equivamp - talk

08:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Equivamp honestly this discussion is pointless, I don’t get where this whole discussion is coming from.

I mean this article has always been a brief overview of a broad topic, it’s not like we have 5 paragraphs for something basic.

talk

) 15:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Kent Dominic for the record, the consensus we chose was based on a combination of sources, that have different definitions of sex.

So where I don’t get this idea of hard consensus.

talk

) 21:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

just a reminder source [1] defined as this.

”Sex: Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions. The fact of belonging to one of these categories. The group of all members of either sex.”

talk

) 21:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Also please understand the context of the sections Evolution, Sexual reproduction, and Animals.

The reason the evolution section is there is to give a brief explanation of the evolution of sex, sexual reproduction, and sex determination. (Mostly discussing the evolution of sex.)

Sexual reproduction is basically describing how it varies across species. From how sexes are disturbed across species and how they reproduce.

Like the thing about four or three sexes in harvester ants was mentioned because three reliable sources mention that.

Reliable sources also mention mating types.

Think of the context.

talk

) 21:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually you gave me a idea.

talk

) 22:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

You know, just because sources say something, does not mean this article should be the home for it. --Equivamp - talk 06:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Sexual systems vary across species. I’m animals it’s usually just gonochorism, trioecy, androdioecy, gynodioecy, and hermaphroditism.

However with plants there is a lot of classifications like more like hermaphroditism, dioecy, gynodioecy, gynomonoecy, trioecy, andromonoecy, trimonoecy, and so much more.

So separating them makes things a lot more easier.

I didn’t realize this earlier but when I checked the article on

Oops that was my mistake. Yeah that that needs some fixing.

Also at first I had an issue with Flowering plants have a longer section, but since 90% of plants are flowering plants that section seems fine to me.

I noticed that some editors took exception to the inclusion of sources (even if from a biology journal) if they were considered overly philosophical in nature (for example, here: [2]). This would make sense as a criticism were philosophy and biology completely separate fields - but this is not the case, given the existence of philosophy of biology. It's relatively common for articles on basic scientific topics to have a reasonable amount of philosophical discussion, given the fundamental nature of the concepts under discussion. This is particularly true when it comes to the definitions of basic terminology; often the practice of different groups of scientists can vary in agreement or precision and philosophers will undertake careful study of the relevant scientific literature and practices to tease out nuances that might not be obvious in a first year undergrad text. This is very relevant to an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia. It would be perfectly appropriate and wise to have a section related to deeper philosophical concepts in this article, though whether any particular individual source is good enough is not for me to say. A proper section btw, not a one source, one sentence edit like that discussed in the link above. 86.130.142.238 (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you asking to include a philosophical section on this topic?

talk

) 23:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

If that’s the case I wouldn’t be too sure about that honestly.

talk

)

I’m just gonna wait and see what other editors think on this.

talk

) 00:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

As I said at that discussion, "a philosophical introspection" in a neonatal surgery journal is not relevant expertise to this topic. The author was not a philosopher of biology, or even a philosopher at all (their affiliation is a Department of Pediatric Surgery). While philosophy of biology is a thing, much of what they write has to do with ongoing debates like what exactly life is, contingency and convergence in evolution, and so forth. They don't outright contradict settled biology, and even if one or two did, they'd be

WP:FRINGE. Philosophers who do not specialize in biology are not really relevant here at all and indeed the vast majority of them don't comment on this topic. Crossroads ^-talk-

04:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Regardless, my post, as I stated at the end of it, wasn't about one specific article but about a general point that sections that relate to philosophy of biology are perfectly acceptable in an article such as this, just as they would in an article on fundamental physics. It also had nothing to do with "contradicting settled biology" so I don't know why you mentioned that. The whole point of (the relevant area of) philosophy of science is to examine all the nuances of what's "settled", rather than contradicting stuff and promoting fringe views. 86.130.142.238 (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

No contradiction. A pediatric surgeon isn't a biologist, and a pediatric surgeon's philosophizing on a biology topic is doubly out of relevant expertise. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

This article is trying to stay exclusive to biological sources. Those other sources I called out in that discussion are reliable but not in the context of this article.

The ideas presented in those sources would be considered fringe to mainstream biologists.

In the section on fungi, the article states "However, following studies on Phycomyces blakesleeanus there may be some reconsideration of this." This not only appears to be predicting a future development but also to be original research. Do we do precog here? Plantsurfer 11:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay to make things easier I’m gonna quote what the source says.

From these observations, it appears that the two sexes of P. blakesleeanus are specialized in their functions. There has been a long debate over the terms “mating type” or “sex” for fungi, with the argument being made that mating type is more suitable because few differences have been observed between mating types. However, these studies in P.blakesleeanus indicate that this argument would be worth reconsidering.

talk

) 20:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I don’t know this sounds the kind of language a primary source would use.

talk

) 20:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually I checked and found a version of this published to PubMed right here and it’s labeled as a review. And according to

talk

) 20:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Even tho the sources do say the evolution of anisogany is synonymous to the evolution of male and female. It's probably not a good idea to go too in-depth on the evolution of anisogamy because the article on anisogamy already goes in depth on it.

I’m not too sure about the removal of sexual reproduction. I do understand the reason for its removal but, the issue is that it is kind of important to this topic.

Also I do think I have read something about the evolution of sexual reproduction being a big factor to the evolution of sex.(I’ll have to look through the sources to confirm this.)

If I see a reliable source directly saying the evolution of sexual reproduction is important to the evolution of sex I’ll put it back in. But for now it should be left out.

Yeah regarding Olivia Judson the things she has said in her book don’t contradict the statements cited in this article. I understand that pop-sci isn’t ideal but, it isn’t a problem if it doesn’t contradict what reliable sources say on the matter.

I had to remove sources from this article becoming they contradicted more reliable sources on the matter. But, this isn’t the case for Olivia.

I may be looking at a different edition, but what I see on pgs 10-12 doesn't verify females in most species being less loyal than males. Could you provide a quote? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you looking at the 2014 version?

Can you quote what you are seeing?

talk

) 05:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

No, I am looking at a 2002 version. There's nothing for me to quote! That's kind of my point. I would paraphrase the points I'm seeing as saying that there's a consensus amount of evidence for female promiscuity, but nothing that compares males and females and suggests that females are less loyal. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I written that down in my own words, the source said something like how females cheat on their spouses.

talk

) 05:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Not seeing anything about "spouses", and we should probably avoid using that term. I agree with Crossroads that we also shouldn't use "loyal". We probably shouldn't be using this source at all. I am not anti-pop-sci for basic claims, but 20-year-old pop-sci is probably not the best we have to offer. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

In this book on page 1 it mentions how distinctions between sexual systems like trioecy, dioecy, androdrioecy and other sexual systems. It mentions how distinctions between these sexual systems aren’t always clear. The book also goes more in depth on sexual systems and I believe some of these facts should be mentioned here.

With a recent addition by

Crossroads honestly I had no issue with you removing that. I’ll admit it was kind of undue weight, three reliable sources cited in this article have argued there is a universal difference.

I tried looking for more sources on the claim of whether or not there is no universal difference. And that was the only source.

I learned some things reading this, and I'd love to read more about it. But not here. Collapsed per

WP:NOTFORUM. Mathglot (talk

) 18:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The section doesn't belong in this article. Incidentally, the section includes a misplaced modifier (i.e. "such as bark lice" mistakenly relates to sex rather than species) and refers to bark lice penises (rather than aedeaguses) and uteruses (rather than oviducts). --Kent Dominic·(talk) 14:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

totally agree. Anyway WP:NOTHOWTO Plantsurfer 17:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I included it because another editor suggested that it should be included.

talk

) 17:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing and Plantdrew: pinging since you had input on the section's creation. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

If the section gets re-upped by some quirk of consensus, the wording should properly be something like this:

Sexing is the process of identifying an individual's biological sex.[1] The anatomy of sex organs is an unreliable means to identify an organism’s sex in a few species, such as bark lice, where females have aedeaguses and males have internal seminal ducts, thus making an organism's gametes or eggs an important sex identifier.[2]

--Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kent Dominic, I agree that this section needs a lot of work. I'd be very happy to have your suggested changes appear in the article.

I think the overall education goal is to explain, now that the readers know that the (biological) definition of "male" is "whichever one produces the smaller gametes", that there are various ways of determining whether an individual is the sort that will produce the bigger or smaller gametes. We should probably

Wikipedia:Build the web to articles like Chick sexing. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 02:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)