Talk:Sexual differentiation in humans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Genetics  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genetics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Anatomy (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has been classified as relating to embryology.
 

Proposed merge with Maternal influence on sex determination[edit]

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

Needless fragmentation, and these articles have a duplicated scope. Therefore I propose a merge LT910001 (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Why suggest that it be merged with the Sexual differentiation in humans article, when it is about more than just humans? I would agree with merging it there if it was a big article focusing on humans. But as it stands, it should be merged with the Sexual differentiation article instead. Flyer22 (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the Sex-determination system article is the most appropriate target for a merge in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
A merge to Sex determination system seems reasonable. I will remove this merge tag and re-propose a correct merge. --LT910001 (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

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


Proposed merge with Sexual differentiation[edit]

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

This article entirely relates to humans in its scope. This article's content should be merged under the clearer title Sexual differentiation in humans, and should then redirect to the Sex-determination system article, which contains information in a more general form about the determination and differentiation present in all animals. LT910001 (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

LT910001, if by this tag, you are proposing that we get rid of the Sexual differentiation article (the title), which is a topic that clearly is not solely about humans and should exist to cover a variety of animals (I don't see how the Sexual differentiation article "entirely relates to humans in its scope," by the way), then I oppose. To repeat what I stated at WP:Anatomy, the Sexual differentiation in humans article is redundant; it's already covered by the Sex-determination system and Sexual differentiation articles, and the material in it should be merged with either or both of those articles if need be (taking certain pieces from it that might fit better in one or the other). But I repeat that the sex-determination system topic is distinct from general sexual differentiation discussion. "The sex-determination system topic is WP:Notable in its own right and should not be bogged down by the general sexual differentiation information. The sex-determination system covers a specific aspect of sexual differentiation, while sexual differentiation covers the general material on that matter (including psychological and behavioral differences)." Flyer22 (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
However, I would agree with moving much of the content that currently exists at Sexual differentiation to Sexual differentiation in humans. I don't see how Sexual differentiation in humans is redundant, as its scope is distinct from both the Sex-determination system article and the Sexual differentiation article. Both Sex-determination system and Sexual differentiation in humans should be considered subarticles of Sexual differentiation. Neelix (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The reason that I argue that the Sexual differentiation in humans article is redundant is because it barely covers any material that is not already covered by the Sexual differentiation and Sex-determination system articles. There is not so much difference with regard to the sexual differentiation of humans compared to the sexual differentiation of other animals that a separate article is needed for humans. When it comes to external physical differences, mental differences, behavioral differences and social differences, with regard to sex, yes, there is so much difference, but this is covered by the Sex differences in humans article. When we can minimize content forking, we should, per WP:Content fork, and that is what LT910001 is trying to address. Flyer22 (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful replies!--LT910001 (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Flyer22 That is exactly my intent. I would like to have proposed a move of most of the content here to the Sexual differentiation in humans article (see below), to reduce content forking. This I feel would be a beneficial move. It was in fact my original intent, but I was not sure whether move/split/merge was appropriate, and was worried a bunch of bureaucratic Wikipedians would arrive and inform me that 'x' is the wrong choice and not actually debate the issue, so I proposed this more provocative option instead.
  • @Neelix I completely agree. There is a lot more than humans out there and the article ought to reflect that. Would you consider a move of the majority of content here to Sexual differentiation in humans, where it belongs? Content that remains could be rephrased in a more general form. See the collapse box below: --LT910001 (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

By "exactly [your] intent," you mean you intended to get rid of the Sexual differentiation article (the title)? Or were you referring to reducing content forking? Both? Either way, it seems that you now agree to keep the Sexual differentiation article. As for the sections that are about humans, significant portions of that (not just the Brain differentiation section that you have marked as not entirely) quite clearly apply to more than just humans (no matter whatever wording is human-focused). The solution, in my opinion, is to reword the content and expand the non-human material or make the material more general where it needs to be. The Sexual differentiation in humans article is quite small and we should not be breaking out the human material from this article unless a break out is needed. The human specific material should be covered in the Sexual differentiation article instead of only partly being covered there and needlessly directing readers to yet another article about sexual differentiation (in this case, one specifically focused on humans even though most of the sexual differentiation information out there is not unique to humans). There is nothing wrong with having a section (with subsections if needed) specifically about humans in the Sexual differentiation article. I always oppose unnecessary WP:Spin outs, and WP:Content fork advises against it as well.

On a side note: Since I am watching this article, you don't have to ping me. I'm sure that Neelix is also watching this article. Also, someone else who might be interested in weighing in on this matter and matters about it at WP:Anatomy is Graham87, who edits and watches the Sexual reproduction article with me and some other sex articles. Flyer22 (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Neelix, but I don't feel too strongly about it. Graham87 04:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
It looks like we all agree that the Sexual differentiation article should remain at its current title. I recommend retaining Sexual differentiation in humans as a separate article because there is already so much content in these two articles relating to humans specifically as compared to other species that the main article would be unbalanced to include all of the human-specific information. All of this information should be included on the Sexual differentiation in humans article, and a summary of this information should be in a single section on the main Sexual differentiation article. It would be great to see more general and non-human information added to the Sexual differentiation article. Neelix (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we are all in agreement to keep the Sexual differentiation article. I still don't agree to keeping the Sexual differentiation in humans article, and that's for the reasons I stated at WP:Anatomy about human-focused articles and above. It's very likely that sexual differentiation has been studied far more with regard to humans than with regard to other animals, and so that's one reason it makes sense to have the Sexual differentiation article be more so human-focused; the other is that our readers are human and are usually looking for information on the human aspects of topics instead of the non-human aspects. To have them needlessly go to another article for that information is not something I will ever agree with. And again, there currently is not a lot of content in the Sexual differentiation in humans article, and what is there is redundant; the vast majority of it does not need to be merged anywhere. WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy (its Other animals field) tells us what to do in the case of anatomy articles that are human-focused. In the sexual differentiation case, though, since sexual differentiation is well studied among animals other than humans, it would make sense to have a Human section and a Non-human (or Other animals) section. But then again, there are sexual differentiation aspects that are the same among various animals (including humans). Either way, I'm in the minority on the "Split or not to split?" question concerning these two sexual differentiation articles, so proceed as you will. Flyer22 (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I apologise to all for the messy way I've gone about doing this. I agree with Flyer22's proposal and have proposed a reverse merge below. I've proposed on this page so that the two threads are next to each other. --LT910001 (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


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


Proposed merge with Sexual differentiation in humans[edit]

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

I am creating a separate section to localise discussion, and have moved the merge tags. As Flyer22 states, there are some good reasons for a merge. I'll reiterate these below: --LT910001 (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Human/animal can be displayed on the same page without the page being excessively long
  • The human content is often what we relate to most, is well-studied and there is often more content, and then an 'other animals' section contains content about other animals. This is the case for numerous articles and follows a guideline at WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy
  • Having this information in a single article is helpful to readers. There's a lot of overlap between the two articles, and having information presented in one place is easier to read and less fragmented, and reduce redundancy. There are a lot of problems with fragmentation, including confusing readers, and having two instead of one article to be edited, which may halve the already scarce editing on these articles.

What could be done (as in other articles) is locate the information on a single article, and then if needed, for example in several years time as the article expands, the 'humans' article could be re-split. Thoughts?

  • Support as proposer. --LT910001 (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't understand how the first point is supportive of the merger. Isn't the fact that "Human/animal cannot be displayed on the same page without the page being excessively long" a reason to not merge? As I have argued above, there is already so much content in these two articles relating to humans specifically as compared to other species that the main article would be unbalanced to include all of the human-specific information. Also, I am not confident that the guidelines about medicine-related articles are appropriate to use here, as sexual differentiation is not primarily a medical issue, but rather a biological one. Neelix (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Whoops, the type makes all the difference. My meaning is that the page won't be too long if the content is merged, but I respect your point of view. --LT910001 (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, per what I stated in the section immediately above this one, the #Proposed merge with Sexual differentiation section; no need to repeat what I stated there in this section. As for following WP:MEDMOS, anatomy sometimes is not considered a medical topic either (at least not a strictly medical one, especially with regard to WP:MED editors), but WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy is the guideline we use for anatomy articles. I guess one should ask whether or not the Sexual differentiation in humans article falls under the WP:Anatomy scope; it's currently not tagged as being within its scope. Flyer22 (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
My concern is anthropocentrism; we are discriminating against non-human species if we focus on information about humans so strongly in an article on a more generally applicable subject. Neelix (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Not as far as WP:Due weight is concerned, if, with regard to sources, it's the case that there is significantly more information on sexual differentiation in humans than in other animals. And per what I've already stated on such title topics, including above, anthropocentrism is the usual way things are covered on the vast majority of topics; all we are doing in such cases are treating such subjects the way they are usually treated in reliable sources, including in many (perhaps most) other encyclopedias. In most cases, the WP:Primary topic is the human aspect of the topic. Flyer22 (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:Primary topic is not applicable here; that is a guideline for disambiguation between two concepts both referred to ambiguously by the same term, not a guideline suggesting that we saturate an article on a topic with a single subtopic. Anthropocentrism is discrimination and is not justifiable simply because other encyclopedias are similarly discriminatory. Neelix (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I agree with the points made by Neelix (talk) above. Merging would either result in an article that was either too long, or, a lot of salient information would have to be jettisoned to keep the article at an appropriate length. Per WP:Spinout when articles become too long, it is appropriate to create main articles on specific subtopics. I also agree that both of these articles deal with basic research, not medical research. Memills (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Neelix, no, WP:Primary topic is absolutely applicable here. Your take on WP:Primary topic is not something that is always agreed upon at the WP:Disambiguation page; likewise, it's the same with regard to our views on WP:Primary topic, as previously shown. I was referring to WP:Primary topic with regard to the article title, by the way. And per WP:Primary topic, this topic should be at Sexual differentiation, not Sexual differentiation in humans, and this is because the human aspect of sexual differentiation "is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for [the term sexual differentiation]." In other words, readers will usually be looking for the human topic with regard to sexual differentiation, and they will be looking for that topic under the term sexual differentiation, not by the wording "Sexual differentiation in humans."
As for the rest, society has biases. One of the biggest "biases" is to usually give far more weight to humans than to non-human animals; this goes for life, medicine, and so on. If you feel that humans and non-human animals should be treated equally, I don't think that Wikipedia is the place to pursue that cause. You'll notice that Wikipedia:Systemic bias currently does not address the human vs. non-human aspect, even though this has been addressed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. You'll notice that Wikipedia:Systemic bias also is not a policy or a guideline, and that the Discrimination article currently is not concerned with humans compared to non-human animals; both of those matters are reflective of the fact that Wikipedia usually cannot and usually should not fight against the way that the preponderance of sources treat a topic. I have made myself clear about about why what you refer to as discrimination in this case is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia, but I will elaborate: Going by what the preponderance of sources say and do is standard practice, per the WP:Verifiability and WP:Due weight policies. Discrimination can be argued in many cases where Wikipedia is supposed to give especial weight to what the preponderance of sources state, similar to how some men at the Sexism article argue that the Sexism article discriminates against men because the Sexism article is significantly more about women than men; those men completely disregard the fact that sexism is discussed far more with regard to girls and women than it is with regard to boys and men in WP:Reliable sources, as pointed out very clearly by me and others, and that this is why that article gives especial weight to females over males. Your solution in the case of the Sexual differentiation article is to needlessly have a spin-out article exist instead of simply expanding any non-human animal material in the Sexual differentiation article and removing any material about humans that is unnecessarily redundant because it's already covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. Your solution is to do that instead of accepting that the Sexual differentiation article, like the vast majority of Wikipedia articles concerning humans and non-human animals, might give more weight to humans than to non-human animals because that's what the sources usually do. And that is a "solution" that I will continue to oppose. And like I stated before, there is not much at all in the Sexual differentiation in humans article.
Memills, the Sexual differentiation article is not too long; and once again, the Sexual differentiation in humans article is far from long. Flyer22 (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The article on sexual differentiation should cover a vast breadth of species and phenomena. Different species can differentiate via quite unique developmental routes. For some species, temperature determines sexual differentiation, in humans males differentiate via the XY chromosome (the reverse is true for birds), etc. The point here is that the article on human sexual differentiation is a subtopic of such salience (to us humans) that it deserves its own article. To suggest otherwise would be analogous to suggesting that human anatomy be merged into an article on mammalian anatomy.
Also, both articles deserve to be greatly expanded. I would agree that the article on sexual differentiation needs a great more work re the differentiation processes of other species. Much of the material specific to humans could be moved to the human sexual differentiation article. Memills (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I still disagree that the Sexual differentiation in humans article should exist, and that's for the reasons I stated above. As for arguing to merge human anatomy into an article on mammalian anatomy, that is sometimes appropriate. As we know, humans are mammals, and sometimes a mammalian article applies to humans and other mammals and there is not much human content for that content to deserve its own article. In cases where a split should happen with regard to human content vs. non-human animal content, I am almost always for the main article being devoted to humans, and the subarticle being devoted other animals, as is the case with the Pregnancy article compared to the Pregnancy (mammals) article. This is for the reasons I stated above with regard to humans usually looking for the human aspect of a topic. That stated, I don't see that the Pregnancy (mammals) article should have been split; there is currently not a lot of material in that article, and it could easily reside in the Pregnancy article and follow the WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy "Other animals" format. Merging the Sexual differentiation in humans article into the Sexual differentiation article is not much different than suggesting that human anatomy be merged into an article on mammalian anatomy; it's just that the Sexual differentiation article, as we know, is supposed to be about sexual differentiation among all animals (not just mammals), and the human aspect would likely be covered more than the non-human aspect. But again, I don't see that the article needs to cover the human aspect more than the non-human aspect. The human aspect is covered in various articles, with some of those articles being very redundant, which is why LT910001 is attempting to merge some of these articles or rather their content into other articles. We can simply point readers to those articles in individual sections, while keeping the Sexual differentiation article from being too dominated, or dominated at all, with human content. All in all, I am not hard-pressed on this topic. I won't care too much if the Sexual differentiation in humans article continues to exist. Flyer22 (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I withdraw this merge, as there does not seem to be consensus. There does however seem to be a general agreement that human-centric content can be moved to the article and rephrased in a more general manner. I'm making 2-3 edits in this light and invite other users to comment. --LT910001 (talk) 00:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Why would the human-centric material need to be "rephrased in a more general manner" in this article (the one specifically about humans)? Flyer22 (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, what I mean is that any content on Sexual differentiation should be rephrased more generally so that it applies to other animals as well. I don't know anything about animal anatomy though so I'm not the best editor to make those changes. --LT910001 (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I figured that's what you meant. However, if most of the sexual differentiation in humans material is going to be covered in the Sexual differentiation in humans article, instead of in the Sexual differentiation article, there should be a section in the Sexual differentiation article specifically about humans (per what has been addressed above with regard to the importance of the human aspect). We should employ WP:Summary style in this case. That section should provide a good summary and be decent-sized, not too small, per MOS:PARAGRAPHS. Flyer22 (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I guess the hatnote you added there will suffice for now; it, however, can have the effect of making readers think that the Sexual differentiation article is not at all about humans. The lead of the Sexual differentiation article is also currently too big, per WP:Lead; it is disproportionate to the rest of the article, which needs to be fixed. Flyer22 (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Flyer22. Please help me to fix this up by doing what you think is necessary, I'd be very glad to have a collaboratee on this. --LT910001 (talk) 06:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any consensus on this merge, so I will close this discussion if there are no objections. --LT910001 (talk) 07:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


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


Proposed merge with The Wolffian System[edit]

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

This article is extremely general in scope and would better be represented as part of the Sexual differentiation in humans article. This would not only provide more context, but also help reduce the needless fragmentation of the sexual differentiation/determination articles under WP's scope. This is part of an effort under WP:ANATOMY, please feel free to comment here or at our talk page LT910001 (talk) 04:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember that system only applying to humans, and re-researching it doesn't seem to indicate that either, so I oppose regulating it to a human title. I suggest toning down the human-centric wording in the lead of that article, such as the word baby. In the meantime, I'll go ahead and remove the The from that article's title and decapitalize system in that article's title, per WP:Article titles, and I'll de-capitalize the section headings, per MOS:HEAD. Flyer22 (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Having a clearer title makes all the difference. I withdraw this merge based on your and Neelix's above comments regarding the content of this article. --LT910001 (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

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


Gender[edit]

I think this article needs some expansion of the 'gender' section, as this is quite an important topic in sexual differentiation. I am not sure about the perspective of other users, but in my mind, this topic also includes non-phenotyping characteristics such as the psychology of gender. Perhaps Flyer22 could help with this? One thing could be to rename 'biology of gender' to 'gender'. I also note that hatnote of that section points to a disambig page, which is not very helpful. --LT910001 (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

From what I have know, and as the Gender article shows, gender is far more of an important topic with regard to humans than with regard to other animals, which is why I made this comment (which was followed up by this comment) at the Sexual differentiation article. It seems that the first of my two comments about it there drew you to focus on the gender aspect of the Sexual differentiation in humans article. Since the topic of sexual differentiation in humans does not only focus on biological aspects, but gender as well (though usually to a significantly lesser degree), and since many researchers connect aspects of gender to biology, I'm fine with you expanding that section. Keep in mind, though, that we already have the Sex differences in humans and Sex differences in human psychology for that topic. My suggestion is to change the Biology of gender WP:Hatnote, which needs to be changed anyway because it points to a disambiguation page, to instead point to the Sex differences in human psychology article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, like I stated at WP:Anatomy, "sexual differentiation" often does not mean the same thing as "sex differences" ("sexual differentiation" usually only refers to the biological matters that distinguish males and females while in the womb, which of course are aspects that contribute to puberty and other biological male and female distinctions long after the fetus has been out of the womb), which is why it's valid that the Sex differences in humans, Sex differences in human physiology and Sex differences in human psychology articles all exist, and should not be combined into the Sexual differentiation in humans article to create one article to cover these topics (not to mention that it would be a huge article if we were to adequately cover all of that material, like the individual articles currently do). Flyer22 (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Change the location of the following true account or delete it.

I attended Brooks Middle School in Detroit Michigan for grades six to eight from September 1980 until June 1983. During my seventh grade physical education class, there was a white (Caucasian) boy also in that class with me who had a vagina, rather than a penis. During showers after class, he would hide it with his hand from others but he would reveal it to me, by simply moving his hand away from it and sometimes turning slightly towards me. I never spoke to him about it nor did I tell anyone else. One day, I was on my way past him when I witnessed an older classmate pointing at him with his arm fully extended and loudly exclaiming, "Look, y'all. This muthafucka got a pussy!". A number of other students quickly came to see for themselves as I continued to enter a distant part of the shower room. When I finished, I walked out, and approaching the locker room I witnessed a slightly older, black student sitting beside him on a bench between two rows of lockers, apparently chatting him up. The only other notable occurrence concerning the white boy, who was somewhat heavyset and looked in every other way like any typical boy and had a normal male voice, was when he reported to one of our two gym teachers, a Mr. Horn, that some girls had entered the boy's locker room. To which, after getting clarity that it was not boys entering the girls locker room but, indeed, girls had entered the boy's locker room, Mr. Horn replied, "Ain't nothin I can do about that".

I keep hearing of ambiguous genitalia and hermaphroditic genitalia but, this boy did not have a penis at all. He was born with a vagina. In that he was named as a boy, looked like any other boy, and walked, talked and carried himself like any other boy, I believe that he has never changed his self identity.

I also believe that there must have been, (and should still exist) medical records describing this extremely remarkable boy. I also believe, as this boy seemed quite healthy and normal, apart from his being of a slightly husky build, that he was internally identical to females with normal reproductive organs and that there exist others with his same condition, including females who also have reversed genitalia.