Talk:Sex

Before complaining about article content, please read: Wikipedia is not censored.

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 (talk • 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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)