Talk:Sex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sex article.
Article policies
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3

-->

To-do list for Sex: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Expand:
    • Add information about sex in non-human animals
    • Add information about the evolutionary pressures on species with more than two sexes
    • Add information about animal species with more than two sexes
Before complaining about article content, please read: Wikipedia is not censored.

Contents

[edit] I don't understand

I don't understand this sentence: "An organism's sex category reflects its biological reproductive function rather than its sexuality or other behavior". What does this mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SaneManiac (jhtalk • contribs) 05:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

I reworded the sentence. Hopefully it is easier to understand now. Neitherday 17:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

==Men have breasts too== my poeple have sex

They may not be of the same size as women, but men have breasts and nipples too, even though they cannot fulfill the same purpose.

Actually, they can - see here --Ben 15:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, there is something I want to say here. Men do, anatomically, have milk glands, but do not produce enough of the horomone needed to actually produce milk. kaa??? God. It was in the book "When Do Fish Sleep?" by some author I can't remember. uh...yeah. eww!!! Snick's Friend (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate uses redundancy

Sex (activity) and Sexual intercourse are the same article, both do not need to be wikilinked. Gender does not contain the word "sex". Human sexual behavior is a discussion of sexual behaviours that is essentially an expansion of the Sex (activity) article. The version I wrote avoids this redundancy and adds "sexing chickens", which expands the current narrow scope of the "alternate uses" line. Neitherday 13:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

We remove Human sexual behaviour as this is quoted again in section "in humans". But 99.99% people who come here come for Sex (activity), this article is in top 100 see special:statistics. Only 0.01% people come for biological sexes, rest all need to be guided to their desired place. as for chicken sexing, dont worry its less than 0.0001% and let people find it in disambiguation page. There is confusion over sex and gender, even i had so i think its necessary. (making these changes now) Lara bran 15:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I've dewikilinked the words "sexual intercourse" as it links to the same article as the "Sex (activity)" link. But, I've otherwise not touched the text from your last edit. While I still question whether "gender" should be there as it doesn't include the word "sex", I don't feel it important enough to further belabour the point. Neitherday 15:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] shemale and middle sex

anybody can expand here about sex discordances? also age span of fertility belong to this article i think. Lara_bran 03:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about intersex, then yes, this article is severely lacking and needs to discuss this. I'll work on it when I have time.Rglong 15:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Here's a source

Here's an article about gender stereotypes and sex: http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=0010000RF3PW. Hope it hasn't already been used in the article. BlueAg09 (Talk) 00:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Differences section

I made a couple grammatical fixes in the Differences section, but, more importantly, I changed the female face entry from "none" to mirror differences noted in the male face entry. This should probably be expanded upon, but it seemed imprecise to state that the female face has no differences from the male face, then name differences of the male face from the female face. Alternatively, it seems to state that the female face is the standard from which the male face has differentiated, which is either a potential NPOV problem or lacking scientific support via citation. Ashdog137 04:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not "differences" section, but its secondary sex characteristics. And females have no secondary sex characteristics in face, per sources given below. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intersex

This needs to have a separate section for intersex. Right now it's listed along with social issues, but intersex is a biological condition. Right now this article almost completely splits humans into males and females, which reflects the lack of awareness of biological sexual diversity in nature and the genetic and hormonal mechanisms that cause it.Rglong 15:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I at least separated intersex from the transgender section, since they are completely different. I hope it now reads correctly, in that intersex is a biological phenomena, while transgender depends more on psycho-social factors. I also think the link for sexual differentiation should be up further, as it's the beginning of everything related to human biological sex. I think I'll move it now.Rglong 17:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Eh I can't find a really good place to put sexual differentiation so I'll just leave it back at the bottom.Rglong 17:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] section on "sexual reproduction"

A section on sexual reproduction needs to be written. Its advantages over asexual reproduction, which is the point in having "sexes", needs a mention in the article. Boats are alive (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added a short section on sexual reproduction. Please feel free to modify it, especially expansions if you can source them. Is what I've added the sort of thing you were suggesting? Alastair Haines (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism found.......

"Sex refers to the male and male duality of sucking nuts and reproduction. Unlike NIGGERs that only have the ability to reproduce asexually, many species have the ability to produce offspring through jacking off because they all have AIDS and can't get ANY!"

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

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

[edit] Rewrite of article

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

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

[edit] Sex organs

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

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

[edit] Great work Madeleine!

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Anti-human article?

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

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

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

[edit] Animals - just plain wrong.

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

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

[edit] sex

                 my mom has told me that sex you should wait on. I didnt belive her at first but now i do i know that might sound crazy but its so true. everybody should wait for sex until bein matured

[edit] Opening sentence

The article's opening sentence is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To elaborate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Intersex

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

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

[edit] Humans

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