Talk:Sexual characteristics

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

	This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Biology Low‑importance Sexual characteristics is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

While I have been a proponent of the Heteronormativity page, I do not see how it applies here in such a way that it belongs in the "see also" section. It is a way of describing views toward gender roles, and has nothing to do with the biology of sex characteristics. I do see a valid point in going the other way around (Heteronormativity to Sexual characteristics), but for very different reasons. -Harmil 20:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simple: The sexual characteristics, which are supposed to divide humans neatly into 2 distinct categories are an essential part of heteronormativity - while at the same time it is heteronormativity that causes the need for those distinct categories. Reverted therefore as most of the rest. -- AlexR 16:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

heteronormativity does not "cuase the need for" sexual characteristics, they are and they have strong bearing on that article, but not visa versa. I will let the community at large deal with this, since obviously you have a personal problem with my edits. I will leave the page that I carefully expanded from stub to useful biology article alone from now on, sadly (except to make sure that the NPOV and accuracy templates remain as long as the article pushes your POV and has factual (admited, below, even) flaws. -Harmil 18:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since that seems to be necessary, here the reasons - point by point - why I revert from your revert again. I would really appreciate if for a change you would discuss them, instead of starting yet another revert war.

• Sexual characteristics' are those characteristics in sexually dysmorphic organisms which are used to determine their biological sex. changed back into Sexual characteristics are those characteristics in virtually all multicellular organisms which are used to determine their biological sex.
  • So because I make a typo - and one you recognisesed, according to your edit comment, you switch back to the old version that does not cover fungi? Sorry, but fungi are not all that important here, and if necessary, it can be added in an extra section. It is certainly not an excuse for a version that is basically false - there are quite a few, if primitive, multicelular organisms which do reproduce asexually. Reverted.

• The development of both is controled by
  SRY gene determine development. reverted to Hormones (chemical messengers between cells) are the trigger that cause most organisms to express and/or alter their sexual characteristics during their development and life cycle
  .
  • Say, you can't just write in a way that most people understand, and at the same time keep content, even if you don't - for whatever reason - like it, can you? Why exactly did you remove the bit about the Y-Chromosome, and what precisely do you mean by "express or alter" their sexual characteristics - that doesn't make a lot of sense, and even if one tries to read some into it, it is hardly an elegant way to express the matter. And hormones don't "express sexual differentiation" either. As for the short explanation what hormones are - unnecessary. People who look up such a topic either have an idea what that is, or don't mind clicking the link. Reverted.
• The "Intersexuality and hermaphrodism" part - yes, well you keep inplying that intersex people are somehow to be put with plants and snakes. This bit is still under the "humans" heading, if you want it to extend to plants and animals (something completely pointless, since it has already been done in other articles) then do that under a seperate heading.

I am really, really sick by your constant reverting to less-than-ideal version, with no reason given, no consideration whatever for the edits that are done by other people, and the whining that accompanies any changes. I find it extremely hard to assume good faith by now, because good faith edits are aimed at improving the article, not at satisfying personal pride (which is what you so tellingly refered to in another talk page). -- AlexR 16:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is important to understand that I began work on this article to expand it from a stub to useful article: [1]

See my edit: [2] for the first round of concerns with AlexR's revisions / reversions (which include the incorrect introductory paragraph which AlexR admitted was a typo, dismissed the need for accuracy with respoect to one of the kingdoms of scientific classification of organisms (an entire kingdom), and then reverted to the admitted wrong text).

After that, AlexR returned to revert most of my edits and add a highly POV section on the elements of human sexual characteristics (which include non-biological sections related to AlexR's work on Heteronormativity, a political and social topic rather than a biology topic.

This is a clear disruption of WP to push a POV cause, laced with personal attacks (see LGBT, where he also stalked my edits, calling them "stupid", "pointless" "BS") in the worst display of Wikipedia hijacking I have yet been exposed to. -Harmil 18:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh seriously, me stalking you - why the heck should I? How important do you think you are? You are waisting my time, nothing else, and I would be quite happy by now if I never had to see any edit of yours. Specifically since you have proven beyond any doubt that you are completely unwilling to discuss anything, read anything I or other people try to tell you, and on top of that you whine when people just won't let your usually highly questionable edits stand.

It is just that you happen to work on articles at the moment which have been on my watchlist for ages -- except this one, which I created. (Well, since I did that, it is on my watchlist, too.) As for your claims of me POV-pushing, or introducing irrelevant content ... seriously, you should get a clue. You might also read what Nick wrote about these things on Talk:LGBT. Also, the table I put in here is directly from the article sex, where nobody so far has objected to it. And you can count on quite a few people having read that article. I guess all those people have been wrong and POV-pushers, too, since they did not object. And of course they have to be wrong, because you object. Then again, maybe you are wrong. You know, you might try to be at least somewhat reasonable and discuss the changes, instead of accusing me of "stalking you" or something -- but don't expect me to hold my breath. I won't. Rather, this is going RfC now. And until you acually come up with some arguments, EOD. -- AlexR 18:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The table might be appropriate for

Wikipedial is not a soapbox. -Harmil 19:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Correcting that - was a vandal this morning in sex [3]. AlexR 22:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please Summarize

Can AlexR and Harmil please summarize exactly what aspects of this article as it is they disagree about, and which parts are the subject of the POV dispute? The stress and tension are more apparent to me than what is being disagreed about. Robert McClenon 19:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. The intro paragraph needs to take the non-dimorphic nature of fungi (and I believe a select few plants) into account.
2. There is a dispute from the discussion at Talk:LGBT which was never here before, but which AlexR brought with him regarding hormones being sexual characteristics. I have yet to find a medical text which has a single word about them being so (they express sexual characteristics, but are not in turn sexual characteristics).
3. The material in the table copied from sex contains information which does not pertain to sexual characteristics, but to psycology and social mechanisms.
4. In the table, the constant repetition of "Usual" is intended to set a tone which is not present in biological texts. If these are attributes of typical humans, we can say so once.
5. The combination of the previous two items and the non-sequitor link to Heteronormativity are an attempt to push the POV topic that is important to both AlexR and myself, but which I am attempting to refrain from injecting into this article (as it is, once again purely POV that it would belong here).

I think that's it. Other than the various insults AlexR has been slinging in his reverts of my work, that's my only concern (and my feelings, as AlexR is quick to point out, are not his concern). -Harmil 20:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I strongly disagree with this statement - I started this article only a few days ago because we had articles about primary sexual characteristics and secondary sexual characteristics, but none about sexual characteristcs as such, making linking to them difficult. (This seemed to be a good idea during the ... disagreement ... over heteronormativity.) That is why the article initially was about humans only. Now, of course it can be extended towards non-human organisms, but is that reason enough to divert from the original topic? Enough reason for an introduction that was confusing at best? He even removed the "humans" heading and moved intersex people in with animals - wow, great. Intersex people will love that.

As for social and psychologial stuff being or not being a sexual characterisic - well, I will just point towards an edit by another person, who, BTW, is a medical doctor: [4]

I also copied the table from sex (accounting for the "usual") which may or may not have been a good idea, but if it fits into sex, it fits into sexual characteristics - why Harmil assumes that sex somehow has a wider scope in that respect eludes me. Maybe he would care to explain?

I am also unsure how adding a link to heteronormativity is a "non-sequitor POV-pushing". I explained my reasons for that above, and I don't consider "non-sequitor POV-pushing" a counter-argument.

Beyond this article, however, it should be noticed that this is the continuation of a - for want of a better word, let's call it "disagreement", although I am not even sure what we disagree about - of a disagreement then that started out on Heteronormativity, went over to LGBT and now arrived here. And although Harmil has accused me of stalking him, I naturally caught his edit on heteronormativity, because I started that article, and have been, as the edit history shows, been watching over it ever since. (And for good reasons, for some reason I can't understand this relatively obscure topic draws nutcases ... Well, different story.) So when he insisted on linking LGBT instead of written-out terms, and complained that LGBT was not the article he wanted it to be, of course I checked these edits - and would have done anyway, because as the edit history of that one shows, I just happen to keep an eye on this one as well. And since I started this article here, I guess it is a somewhat unreasonable assumption that I made edits to his edits because I am "stalking" him.

I am only interested in good articles, and welcome any 3rd party intervention - and as might be noticed regarding the other two articles, where Joolz intervention ended the edit war -- well, as far as that article was concerned. Unfortunately, every time the edit war stopped on one article, it went on to the next. And I really hope that this finds an end soon. -- AlexR 22:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So there you have it. Two fairly reasonable sounding people who seem to have the same goals in mind. Sadly, we also seem to have different ideas about what constitute POV, NPOV, "stupid" (a word I would never use on Wikipedia), "BS" (another), "Mr.Whiner", etc. Here's one edit to my rather substantial expansion of this article from stub to small, but respectable article. Note the edit summary message: [5]

Notice the removal of any mention of vertebrate non-humans. This is the kind of poor quality research has greeted any edit of mine on any of three pages so far. In each case, I have compromised as much as I could, while still retaining a connection to the facts represented by external sources, and each compromise was dubbed a "reversion" by AlexR and in turn reverted back to his original text. This is not editing, this is enforcement of a POV that involves bringing Heteronormativity to the foreground of Wikipedia discorse (while I welcome bringing that topic to the foreground of discourse, WP is, once again, not a soapbox). -Harmil 22:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you seem to think that my edits somehow aim to "bring heteronormativity to the foreground of Wikipedia discourse". Other than that this persistant edit war started over the article on heteronormativity, this article here - as well as LGBT - does not have such a substantial connection with the article on heteronormativity that your statement would make even the slightest sense. Mind you, of course those concepts are related, and linking to them is - IMO - appropriate (although you were the one who insisted on linking LGBT to heteronormativity, not me), but I am hardly pushing that particular concept anywhere. Not that I would try - WP sees several thousand edits a day, and to push any article into the foreground of WP discourse is next to impossible. I also see no reason why I should try. Maybe you can enlighten me what my alleged motive for such a furtile endeavour is supposed to be. I sure don't know. I might also add that the sole reason for my edits on LGBT and the creation of this article were your previous edits, which seemed to warrant this - and they seemed to warrant this because your edits before that showed exactly what you are showing now - a complete inability not only to compromise, but to actually communicate and discuss matters, which obviously is a conditio sine qua non for any compromise.

I might add, for the benefit of readers not familiar with the previous non-discussions, that by now other people are trying to tell Harmil similar things in Talk:Heteronormativity, and he is not listening to them, either. So this waste of time is obviously far less my fault than he paints it to be.

As for you, Harmil, compromising as much as you could - well, I have to say, you can't compromise much. I have, for the most part, incorporated your wishes and presumed aims into my edits, while all you ever did was basically reverting, occasionally leaving in a sentence of mine, which sometimes lost any sense because you deleted or jumbled the context. How is that compromising? Similarly, I have asked you several times just to expand anything you thought I had deleted and which, according to you, I should not have delete. Instead of expanding, though, you - well, reverted, deleting my edits, and expanded exactly nothing. I dunno, but that is not my idea of constructive cooperation. -- AlexR 03:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to be undecided whether it should better be Human sexual characteristics. I for one would like to see more general biological stuff added and the human-centrism toned down. Also, it's most unclear to me, why issues of gender are included at all. --Pjacobi 19:07, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

It appears that civility has broken down in the disagreement about whether parts of this article are POV or NPOV. Please remember that one of the first rules of Wikipedia is

Vertebrates (especially humans) whose sexual characteristics are ambiguous or mismatched are called intersex

.

I would now like to appologize for that edit. I was wrong, but I was wrong in the opposite direction from the way AlexR would like to take the article ("intersex persons"). Upon doing more research off-line and reading pages (such as [6] and [7] and Foote CL. Intersexuality in amphibians. In: Intersexuality in Vertebrates Including Man (Armstrong CN, ed). New York:Academic Press, 1964;234-272.) it becomes obvious to me that I was limiting the term intersex to vertebrates incorrectly, and that too should be addressed in this article.

Of course, if AlexR has references for his "intersex persons" bias which are more authoritative than the NIH or NYU, then I would be more than happy to read them over. I enjoy reading up on this sort of thing, and would really sink my teeth into any citations he'd care to make. -Harmil 06:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I did was dividing the article in a section about humans and non-humans, although I merely did copy "invertebrates and plants" (your words) as a heading for non-humans, expecting, since that is how WP usually works, that you would actually bother to expand the bit about non-human life forms, since you seem to care so much about them. This division included splitting up the intersex bit. You however insisted that intersex people had to be thrown in with "invertebrates and plants" instead of letting the "human" heading stand. So your highly biased claim about this edit of mine is - well, typical. Instead of correcting anything you see as a problem you insist on reverting back to a version that has other problems, and no attempt is being made at all to do anything like constructive work. Maybe you should sink your teeth into that. -- AlexR 09:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What claim about what edit? The only edit I made reference to was my own, and other than in refering to one comment of yours from this discussion, the above wasn't about you, but about the science involved. I'm really losing track of where you're unhappy with my bringing real science to this article. Intersex is a biology term which can be broadly applied to any organism that has sexual characteristics. We should mention that in an article about sexual characteristics, no? That was my point. Where did I "insist on reverting back to a version that has other problems" or make no attempt to be constructive? Be specific, and helpful, here. I have laid out my specific concerns and then expanded to note concerns I had with even what I wrote. I have contributed to this page in substantial ways. To cast my work as non-constructive again seems to be an instance of simply throwing around insults and derision without working with me (as I've tried to work with you and incorporate your work into various versions that you've called vandalism or reversions (which they are not), reverted and brought to RfC).

I'm here, doing research for a topic you clearly care about, and ready and willing to work with you on this topic. What more could you want? -Harmil 15:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My initial intent in creating this article was simply to enable a link to sexual characteristics. Now increasingly this article is becoming a bad copy of sex. Maybe I just should have made it a redir to sex in the first place, but I had a feeling that this would not go down well with Harmil. Well, creating the article didn't, either. But by now I am wondering whether we need this article at all - and secondary, whether in the current situation it makes any sense trying to make this an article at all, or whether abandoning it (for now at least) and making it a redit would not be the better solution. Any opinions? -- AlexR 09:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have an opinion. My opinion is that trashing the article that we have both contributed to (and which is an expansive topic in biology) after you brought it to the RfC process would introduce no value to Wikipedia, while substantially removing value. You did ask.

More to the point: I'm putting forth this suggested version: User:Harmil/Sexual characteristics. Please feel free to add comments to that version (please, do not edit the text, since it is intended as a model of what I'm suggesting not a copy of this article) with :'''''...''''' formatting, and sign your comments. I will take those comments into account and update the text.

This version removes the table (AlexR took it from sex, so we're not losing it, and it has a lot of information in it which is not specifically about sexual attributes, so while I like the table in terms of its contents on sex, I don't think it goes on this page). This version also attempts to further refine the non-human-centric view of sexual characteristics, while addressing concerns of AlexR's that intersex needs to call attention to humans specifically. It then addresses my concern from above that intersex is not limited to vertebrates. Please (anyone) comment, but please do so with an eye to the science, not the personalities involved. Thanks! -Harmil 15:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your version is slightly better than the version you constantly revert to, but you keep ignoring 90% of the comments I made on this page, so why should I bother to make them again? Sorry, but this is extremely tiresome, and rather pointless. I also don't exactly think that adressing one of my concerns justifies ignoring all the others, nor do I think it makes a lot of sense to try to cover the sexual characteristics of all life froms that have them (instead of dividing between humans and various non-human forms), and it makes even less sense to talk about "higher organism" first, and then about "persons" in the same sentence. Persons are human beings, which is not exactly what every "higher organism" is.

Not only that, you also graciously ignored the comments Nick already made on Talk:LGBT, namely that sticking with purely physical characteristics is not exactly the only way one can view this (to put it mildly). So if you are not willing to take into account 90% of what I said, and not anything anybody else says, what makes you say that you are working on anything approaching a compromise? You are not. You are still trying to push your personal vision of this article - which is still far less than ideal - so why the pretense of cooperation and adressing any concerns? Address those already made and we might get anywhere. Until then, stop borimg me with your pretense of coopoeration which shows nothing of the sort. -- AlexR 16:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're unwilling to explain your concerns inline so that I can work toward a consensus, then? -Harmil 16:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The comments you are refering to start off, "The dichotomy you are discussing here has its roots in the historical intolerance of science and medicine for 'true hermaphrodites.' While nature loves diversity, society hates it ? especially medical society." -NickGorton Yes, I think it's safe to say that I'm not taking that POV into account here. -Harmil 17:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try - first you ignore everything I say, then you ask me to explain my opinion, and when I say that I already did so, you claim I refuse to explain myself. Not to mention that you disregard an entire comment by a 3rd person, including the references to books given there, because you do not like the initial statement. You know, that is from a talk page, and therefore is allowed to be POV, but that does not mean it can be disregarded. Not to mention that the statement may be quite blunt, but it is not entirely without merrit - as everybody who has ever worked for and with intersex and transgender people learned the hard way.

So, sorry - your transparent attempt at painting yourself as Mr Compromise himself and me as somebody who does not even want to explain himself is not exactly going to work, since it if clear from the debates above that this is just not true. So you might as well stop that and try to actually do work towards a good article instead of trying to paint yourself in a thoroughly undeserved good light. -- AlexR 21:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then I guess it's up to those who assist via your RfC. They can read what both of us have written here; the current version of the article; the concerns that lead me to add the dispute tags; and the page that I've suggested as a compromise. I look forward to the input of others (though I already agree with what was said by Pjacobi, and hope that I've addressed it sufficiently in my suggested version).... -Harmil 21:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was intended as a PS to my comment above, and only accidentally saved after Harmil's last comment.

Oh, and PS: On my talk page you said: "Please, assume that I honestly do not yet understand your concerns, and that your explanations have not made them clear to me (no fault there, just different ways of explaining one's self and learning)." [8] Here you claim that I refuse to explain my concerns altogether. There seems to be a contradiction here.

I might add that I asked uninvolved parties to check whether my explanations above were comprehensible. They considered them to be so, even without any particular interest in that subject. So maybe it might help if you just re-read them. If you have any further questions left, feel free to ask. -- AlexR 22:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I came here after seeing the RFC. After skimming this article, I find it clearly redundant with sex, and propose it be merged. -- Beland 05:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So merged. -- Beland 06:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the change for the following reasons:

• This article is an excellent resource for a narrow topic which is referenced often.
• We've discussed merging with sex, above before.
• An hour isn't long enough to wait between suggesting a merge and performing it (unless you are doing so with the expectation of reversion). That's what the mergeto/from templates are for.
• I've been soliciting comments on a new version of this page, which you have not commented on. To merge instead of commenting on significant work done by others seems... an unfortunate oversite.

-Harmil 13:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, the proposal to merge was made by me weeks ago, so I guess the "one hour" argument doesn't exactly hold water. Nor is the article particularly excellent, as the debates above shows. And given that most of the work was mine here, well, I sure don't mind the merge, since there was no way of making this article not becoming a bad copy of sex anyway. -- AlexR 16:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; merging seems indicated. — Dan | Talk 16:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You keep reverting my work, making assertions about my motivations, implying that I'm trying to sneak in changes somehow or otherwise deal dishonestly with this article.

Yet, when I put up a new version of this page and request comments, you refused. After 15 days I then copied the exact content that I had put up on a temp page for comments into the article, and you revert it with an edit summary that suggests that I'm trying to sneak it in?! Worse, you suggest that my edit is better than what's currently there, but still revert it.

Please, list for me the concerns that you have, and try not to make it personal. Just cite the sections that you have a problem with in the article as I edited it, and I will try to address your concerns. Where we have a difference of opinion, we can bring those specific points up for discussion with others.

As it is, no one else can really help us to untangle our "disagreement" because it's just you reverting my work... not much to untangle there. Let's give others some meat to sink their collaborative teeth into and make this article useful. -Harmil 17:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making anything personal, and I have mentioned the problems here tons of times, each time you choose to ignore it, and called again for me to tell you what's wrong (which I already did, and which you ignored). I know it sounds nice to say that, but really, that strategy does not work too well when people bother to read what happened previously, as they usually actually do on WP (as opposed to other places). So yes, indeed, it would be a really good idea to stop that.

Oh, and besides, I have no idea how you conjured up my assumed opinion of you - you didn't really come close, either. So maybe we could stop that, too? I'd really appreciate that. -- AlexR 18:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: WHAT EXACT POINTS DO YOU FEEL ARE NOT YET ADDRESSED? -Harmil 00:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User:Harmil/Sexual characteristics, I did indeed look at this version and considered it when merging content into sex. Most of the material in both versions was already present in that article in greater detail, anyway, so there was no need to do anything. I did like the peacock picture very much, and I added it to Secondary sex characteristic. If there's anything you think I've missed, or anything new you'd like to add, please do add it to sex or one of its subarticles. One reason not to re-incarnate this article is not that the content is necessarily bad, it's just that it already exists in a more complete form elsewhere. -- Beland 08:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I look slightly differently at this stuff. I've been in the corner of both of these editors in the past. In this case, I'd ask "is there a lack of coverage that such an article would fill?" The answer to that, to me, remains "yes." I know that the information here has been merged into sex, but redirects are iffy when the targets too large. We ought not redirect (and would not think of) Bill Gates to Human and merge the material in there. To some degree, a break-away article can accomplish greater utility by making a coherent statement in a wider or narrower context than a suitable parent article. The mechanisms of sexual dimorphism and phenotypical change due to gene expression in the presence or absence of certain hormones is interesting and, frankly, a bit extranneous to sex (and especially sex, which already has to disambiguate). In essence, I suppose I'm saying that Harmil's attempts are laudable precisely because they're about basic biology and not behavior/society/gender. Instead of calling it "biology," though, perhaps we're better off saying that it's a physiology article that's still needed.

So I, anyway, can see why this war needs to end, but I also can see why we're still left with a gap in our coverage, because we don't have a physiological discussion. (shrug) Geogre 19:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not actually a double redirect, but anyway "sexual characteristics" is a biology term and there is no way on earth it could possibly redirect to sexual intercourse! (I've seen too many of these crap redirects today) Lysis rationale (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what exactly was that the editorial team found the previous version of the article "lousy" (or controversial for that matter, lol), but I made it into a highly relevant disambig page. Lysis rationale (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote down some thought over at

Do primary sexual characteristics include gonads? Born25121642 (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added a factual accuracy tag to the page. Born25121642 (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LMGTFY: "primary sex character, features present at birth that comprise the external and internal genitalia, including the penis and testes and the vagina and ovaries." —Encyclopaedia Britannica. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same term. Born25121642 (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to fixed that but it won't. Can you please fix this for me? Thank you. 75.137.1.247 (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]