Talk:Tanner scale: Difference between revisions
→This page needs to be edited to be inclusive to transgender people. It is a page that is of special interest to us and the diction needs work.: Reply (EC, and I knew it was going to be you, Flyer22!) |
mNo edit summary |
||
Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
Rather than males and females, the diagrams should be relabeled simply penises and breasts etc. Anatomy need not be gendered. {{Unsigned|76.27.195.219}} |
Rather than males and females, the diagrams should be relabeled simply penises and breasts etc. Anatomy need not be gendered. {{Unsigned|76.27.195.219}} |
||
:Anatomy does need to be gendered, or, more precisely, be clear on what is a male or a female body and the [[pubertal]] process involved in that when it comes to talking about puberty. Male and female bodies biologically exist. This page is about biology, not about [[gender identity]]. The [[sex and gender distinction]] exists for a reason, though not everyone subscribes to it. And like I recently stated [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_marriage&diff=630835302&oldid=630792158#Wording_at_lede here] at the [[Same-sex marriage]] talk page, "biology is more complicated than just, for example, |
:Anatomy does need to be gendered, or, more precisely, be clear on what is a male or a female body and the [[pubertal]] process involved in that when it comes to talking about puberty. Male and female bodies biologically exist. This page is about biology, not about [[gender identity]]. The [[sex and gender distinction]] exists for a reason, though not everyone subscribes to it. And like I recently stated [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_marriage&diff=630835302&oldid=630792158#Wording_at_lede here] at the [[Same-sex marriage]] talk page, "biology is more complicated than just, for example, 'You have a [[Y chromosome]], so you're a male.' But there's also the fact that, like I stated near the end of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transsexualism&diff=626620195&oldid=615331261#An_important_point... this section] at the [[Transsexualism]] talk page, '[[Intersex]] people are usually biologically classified as male or female (based on physical appearance and/or chromosomal makeup, such as [[XY female]] or [[XX male]]), and usually identify as male or female; it's not the usual case that an intersex person wants to be thought of as neither male nor female. Being thought of as neither male nor female is usually a [[third gender]] or [[genderqueer]] matter.' The same applies to [[transgender]] people (at least when you exclude genderqueer people from the category of transgender); they usually identify as male or female and/or as a man or a woman. 'I'm not aware of science having actually identified a third sex, though intersex people and [[hermaphroditic]] non-human animals are sometimes classified as a third sex (by being a combination of both)... ...but [[gender]] is a broader field and researchers have identified three or more genders (again, see the Third gender article).'" |
||
:For how we are generally supposed to treat anatomy and medical topics on Wikipedia when it comes sex/gender, see [[Talk:Phimosis/Archive 2#Definition]]. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 03:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC) |
:For how we are generally supposed to treat anatomy and medical topics on Wikipedia when it comes sex/gender, see [[Talk:Phimosis/Archive 2#Definition]]. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 03:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:29, 25 October 2014
![]() | Medicine Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
|
![]() | Sexology and sexuality Unassessed | |||||||||
|
Added
Added a couple of links to some sites with tasteful drawings of the Tanner stages for both genders.
Like to start tanner scale in court
This would be an add on, quoting published letters about the use of the tanner scale in court. The Tanner Scale doesn't give the actual age, but a "development" stage, which CAN NOT account for breast augmentation, shaving of pubic hair, and photo touch-ups. It is all been said by doctors who use the scale, it only has been tested and works with real life people. This means 1) using the tanner scale on a photo has not been scientifically tested and 2) it doesn't work on images, and Doctors will freely say that.
I have with my lawyer all the paper work that many people will most likely be looking for. (The previous unsigned comment was left by User:FyiFoff on November 15, 2006)
- What would the tanner stage even be used for in court? To prove that a picture of an alleged minor is in fact of a sexually matured individual, or that the presentation of the tanner stage in the picture shows that the person depicted is allegedly not sexually matured, and thus under-age? I would very much not like to see this article turned into a legal reference on under-age pornography, and/or a defense against it. Such information about its use in court is a legal issue, which by the very nature of Wikipedia could not be dealt with appropriately, as it would present legal advice, which again by the very nature of Wikipedia, it is in no position to present. Your propose still seems to lack any clear guideline for what would be added to the article. --Puellanivis 17:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The tanner scale is used in court cases which isn't it's intent from the man who created the tanner scale. I'm not try to go for or agaist the use of it, just the fact it's being used in court if you 'want' it printed here or not.
The point is the tanner scale is ONLY a system used for the id of real people for real life things in the ER.
((If not for court cases, people would never google or wiki the tanner scale.))
The tanner scale is a tool the DA uses, to say this image is a minor, which is not the point of the tanner scale. There are letter from the doctor who made the tanner scale and a officer about the use of the tanner scale. -- --FyiFoff 12:35, 15 November 2006 (EST)
- First DNA testing for the identity of a splotch of blood at a crime scene was not the intent of the person who discovered DNA. Yet, DNA makes no mention of its use in court cases. Why should Tanner Stage be different? Courts use lots of different available information, and simply because it was not originally intended to be used for that purpose is not sufficient reason to legally exclude that information. Video cameras were not originally intended to be used to collect evidence for court, but now it is undebatable that such evidence should be admissible in court. Despite the same problems with pictures, that they can be touched up, and altered. It's the responsibility of the lawyer to point out that a video may be doctored if they do not stipulate to its authenticity, and the jury/judge to evaluate said evidence and an allegation of doubt against it.
- Second, I never heard of Tanner Stage being used by the court before you mentioned it, so the assertion that no one would google or wiki is except for court cases is false. I came across it as an evaluation of sexual development, because when I had my hormone levels tested, there was a listed indication of what levels are appropriate for various tanner stages. Tanner stages *also* are used to cover masculine sexual development, which clearly would not be addressed by "breast augmentation". And if a female has a Tanner Stage 1 or 2 breast, then there is little reason to think that they are not sexually developed, and a tanner stage 1 and 2 breast are *very* easy to identify against a tanner stage 4 or 5 breast. And "Brest Augmentation" cannot account for Stage 1/2 breasts on an adolecent.
- The DA will and should use as many tools and evidence available to prove their case, the fact that you can find a doctor who would criticise the evidence presented is nothing special. You can find an expert who will say anything about everything, as long as you look hard enough.
- Tanner Stage's use as a piece of courtroom evidence is not notable enough to warrant entry in this article. --Puellanivis 02:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
U=So you heard of the tanner scale from going to the doctor, I know about it from court.
1) love the DNA point, dna is dna. But the tanner scale is not a scientic tool, like DNA or a camera, which record ACTUALLY information. the tanner scale has a "window of + or - 1.8 or so of "getting" the "correct" actually age.
1b)DNA makes no mention of its use in court cases. that's fine but i bet 1) it refers to the DNA database. 2) i'm sure somewhere on wiki in say this is how people are released from jail and their convictions 3) it refers to crime fiction (which didn't know about finger prints let alone DNA.
1c) if yo listen to the news, remember R. Kelly and his case, they mention using the Tanner scale. (just because you didn't hear about it doesn't mean anything to me, because you are not a cop, doctor, or lawyer, or court worker.) to see tanner scale in court see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=tanner+scale+in+court )
2) The courts use the tanner scale, not the defense. ( I did NOT find a doctor who would criticise the evidence){i will s-plain see 5}
3) the Man, the Doctor who made the tanner scale, James F. Tanner, MD, PhD says it wasn't made for for the way courts use it, see 4.
4) Tanner staging, which was designed for estimating development or physiologic age for medical, educational, and sports purposes (in other words, identifying early and late maturing children), has been misused in the courts when it is used not to stage maturation, but to estimate probable chronological age. For a better understanding of the Misuse of the Tanner Scale, you may wish to read the communication between Detective McLaughlin of the Keene Police Department and Dr. Arlan Rosenbloom; Department of Pediatrics at the University of Florida College of Medicine. <--- this is from http://www.ci.keene.nh.us/police/task_force.htm
5) The dotor that I talk about, looked at picture for the police and DA, on the stand for the police and DA she says, "the tanner scale works only on real girls, not images" {{{That is very scary}}} she is the only "evidence" of their being a crime. Totally not scientic, her aging, was in fact 12 years to young.
6) there is a bill at the federal level which they are working on for child porn, which use include the tanner scale.
I'm not looking for an "expert" i'm just looking at the fact, and the facts are very clear. If you don't believe me, call you local major hosiptal, find the department which deals with abused child, and they will tell you they use the tanner scale, for both 1)abused kids they can see and touch for court cases, and 2)images of child porn which they don't see the child.
if you have any questions email me seven2of3two@aol.com, we can email or I can give you my phone number. thanks-- --FyiFoff 9:01, 17 November 2006 (EST)
- Right, so the federal government passes a law saying you cannot have images of a person who appears to be in an undeveloped sexual level, such as Tanner Stage 1 or 2. I'm sorry, but I don't have much sympathy. You say that your pornography was of an 18 year old, but according to your assertion on the child pornography talk page the images appear to be 10~12 by the tanner stage. (You assert that Tanner Stage is typically off by 1.8 years... this range is reasonable.) Even if your models were actually 18, and you were not looking at child pornography, you are looking at pictures that may as well be child pornography, if they could be confused for a 10~12 year old. So, let's look at http://www.fpnotebook.com/END42.htm where they say that Tanner Stage 2 breasts are at age 10.9 (8.9 to 12.9) (this gives the same range you stated) Now, I don't know how much you know about Tanner Stages, but Tanner Stage 2 breasts are merely puffed up nipples on a flat chest. It is very easy to tell this apart from a mature breast, even if a woman does not develop any mass to her breasts, because a mature breast has a larger, and darker developed nipple. <<< --FyiFoff adds, what happens if you include studio lighting, makeup, and photoshop?? Many actors and porn people have their tattoos airbrushed "away" >>>
- Child pornography is often now being determined by apparent Tanner Stage of the model, because even "fake" child pornography of models who are at least 18, but are digitally altered to have their appearance be of someone who would be under-age only fuels further child pornography. They are also attempting to deal with imagery produced as a 3D Model, where the actual age of the model is irrelevant, because there is no physical model. Pornography depicting any model that is not sexually mature is inappropriate. <<< --FyiFoff adds, acutally you're wrong, i can draw an under age child in sexually ways or alter a 18+ model in a picture to a minor--this IS NOT against the law. For child porn to be child porn it HAS TO HAVE a REAL CHILD. (it's sad, but that's the law) >>> If you want detail about the use of Tanner Stage in court for Child Pornography, have it added to that article, as it is here, it is inappropriate. Why? Ok, let's take a look at just http://www.google.com/search?q=tanner+stage... hm... first page no mention of court... second page, http://www.ci.keene.nh.us/police/tanner%20scale.htm first case of Tanner Stage court. Ok, you can have one line saying "There is some controversy over the use of Tanner Stages to place a cronological age of models in child pornography." Still, if federal law states that it's based on the apparent Tanner Stage of the model in the image, then you're screwed, because the law explicitly defines it as the apparent Tanner Stage. --Puellanivis 16:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I have meet the models in my case, one is ashley, on the cover of hustler barely legal 9 video. she is a flat aa cup girl, at the time of her pictures she was 21, the doctor said she was 10, the doctor was wrong. another model who is a famous porn star was 26 in her pictures, the doctor said she was 10. She used the tanner scale, it failed. it failed as the doctor said, it doesn't work on images. Also these girls were clean shaved, which throws off the scale.
- My ex-wife, at age 35 and after bearing 5 children, was at Tanner stage 1 to 2. I didn't marry her for her body, but imagine if I were still married to her, and had photos of her in less-than-dressed condition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.229.99.76 (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Growth rates and the Tanner scale
We should add information on standard growth rates of the different Tanner stages, as fast growth is also a trait of puberty. The external links for Tanner stage descriptions already include growth rates, so we should include them too. --NetRolller 3D 12:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Genital mutilation
Why are the images for male genital development depicting a mutilated (circumcised) penis? That doesn't make a any sense.
Reliable sources on law enforcement applications of the Tanner Scale
- Litigating Child Pornography and Obscenity Cases in the Internet Age By David T. Cox - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- UNITED STATES of America V. Anthony MARCHAND, Defendant Date: March 5, 2004 - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent, Appellant,v.DAVID HILTON - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- CHILD PORN: WHAT IS REAL, WHAT IS VIRTUAL? - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Genital size
The genital size given seems to be for the penis in erect state, not flaccid. Also, there's some normal variation for full development, anyway. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
To simplified?
As implied earlier this article is simplified, "Adapted from text by Lawrence Neinstein, MD". This source is dead. May be good to expand the stages using the original source. I know, a suggestion. My plate is already full. -- :- ) Don 22:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
This page needs to be edited to be inclusive to transgender people. It is a page that is of special interest to us and the diction needs work.
Rather than males and females, the diagrams should be relabeled simply penises and breasts etc. Anatomy need not be gendered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.195.219 (talk • contribs)
- Anatomy does need to be gendered, or, more precisely, be clear on what is a male or a female body and the pubertal process involved in that when it comes to talking about puberty. Male and female bodies biologically exist. This page is about biology, not about gender identity. The sex and gender distinction exists for a reason, though not everyone subscribes to it. And like I recently stated here at the Same-sex marriage talk page, "biology is more complicated than just, for example, 'You have a Y chromosome, so you're a male.' But there's also the fact that, like I stated near the end of this section at the Transsexualism talk page, 'Intersex people are usually biologically classified as male or female (based on physical appearance and/or chromosomal makeup, such as XY female or XX male), and usually identify as male or female; it's not the usual case that an intersex person wants to be thought of as neither male nor female. Being thought of as neither male nor female is usually a third gender or genderqueer matter.' The same applies to transgender people (at least when you exclude genderqueer people from the category of transgender); they usually identify as male or female and/or as a man or a woman. 'I'm not aware of science having actually identified a third sex, though intersex people and hermaphroditic non-human animals are sometimes classified as a third sex (by being a combination of both)... ...but gender is a broader field and researchers have identified three or more genders (again, see the Third gender article).'"
- For how we are generally supposed to treat anatomy and medical topics on Wikipedia when it comes sex/gender, see Talk:Phimosis/Archive 2#Definition. Flyer22 (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The Tanner scale is used for discussing anatomical sex characteristics, as opposed to behavioral, psychological, and social ones. For issues related to medicine, like this one, binary biological gender is still important and widely used. While Wikipedia generally does try to use gender-neutral language, Wikipedia also uses reliable sources to determine how things are described. For things related to human anatomy Wikipedia and the vast, vast majority of sources use a simply binary most of the time. Female reproductive system and Male reproductive system, for example. If you can think of a way to make this more gender neutral that matches what reliable sources say, please bring it to our attention. Grayfell (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)