Talk:Sex characteristics (legal term)

Legal attribute

The term "sex characteristics" is now being used in jurisprudence, so I thought it was worth changing this page from a redirect for Sexual dimorphism to contain information on that legal development, as well as provide basic material pointing to pages focused on physical sex characteristics. This is only a start. Trankuility (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Redundant fork

Trankuility, this page is redundant to existing pages: Sex organ (Primary sex characteristics), Secondary sex characteristics, and Sexual dimorphism. We don't need this page as well, especially when it is mostly about legal matters. Right now, I have to go, but I will address this again later and bring others in on it to discuss. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Flyer22 Reborn, thanks for your comment. I hope that, when you have more time, you will consider that the legislative term "sex characteristics" is exactly the point of the new material. Additional material is only needed to help people who land on the page for other purposes, and I grant that it needs to be the minimum necessary. Thanks. Trankuility (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trankuility, we could make this article into a good or decent WP:Broad concept article, but I still don't see it as needed. I'll contact WP:Biology and WP:Anatomy to weigh in on this. Not too long ago, WP:Anatomy editors discussed merging and otherwise consolidating a lot of our sex differences articles. And we did merge and otherwise consolidate some of them; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 7#Sexual differentiation articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, however, the core purpose is to create a space for material on the legislative attribute, and ways that different jurisdictions are protecting citizens on the basis of sex characteristics. This has arisen since those discussions in WP:Anatomy which, by the way, ignore the neurological material that you have contributed to on Causes of transsexualism, as well as intersex biologies. To my mind, the "sex characteristics" discussion is different to an Intersex human rights discussion because sex characteristics are universalised. It is an opportunity for a WP:Broad concept article, either way, my suggestion would be to let other people comment, but also to let this evolve a little. Trankuility (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trankuility, my issue is that we can't have this article be titled "Sex characteristics" and then mostly be about legal or human rights commentary, or mostly about intersex issues, no matter that the commentary is about sex characteristics. That's not what most people look for when they type or search "sex characteristics." A Wikipedia article should not be created under such a well-recognized title simply, or mostly, to cover one specific aspect of that topic. Doing so is a disservice to our readers. I brought up the sexual differentiation article merges because it is an example of having too many pages with similar titles and/or covering the same thing (or mostly the same thing); it is an example of merging when the standalone articles are not justified. A page that is titled "Sex characteristics" but is mostly about legal issues is not justified. If this article is to stay, it should be a WP:Broad concept article or renamed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, your latest comment reads like you're changing tack to justify a predetermined conclusion. The issue here is that "sex characteristics" is now starting to become a phrase and an attribute in law and in human rights, in the same way that "gender identity" and "sexual orientation" are for different (and overlapping) populations. Discussion is warranted for that reason. Trankuility (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was no "changing tack to justify a predetermined conclusion" on my part. There is me repeating and expanding on why this article, in its current state, should not exist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There does not seem to be agreement on which material is redundant. Whichever, if the material is not here then there needs to be a disambiguation page. Trankuility (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editors below agree that the article is redundant if the legal material is not included. The only thing differentiating this article from the others is the legal material. And I've argued that the legal material is not enough to justify this page in its current state. Also, per WP:Disambiguation, a disambiguation page would be inappropriate. The WP:Primary topic for sex characteristics is not the legal aspects; so the Sex characteristics title should not be a disambiguation page just to point to an article about the legal aspects. Information about the legal aspects should either have its own section in the Sex characteristics article (pointing to the main page on that, if it exists) or a link in the article's See also section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, there is agreement that there should be a "Sex characteristics" article? I'm confused about your position at present. Trankuility (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2016‎

My position is the following: The current article you've created is not justified. It looks as though it only exists to cover the legal information you included. Look to my "05:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)" post above again; that is my position. It has not changed. The only way I can support this article is if it's a WP:Broad concept article or is renamed. (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate on what you meant when you said this, a few minutes ago: "Information about the legal aspects should either have its own section in the Sex characteristics article". What should a "Sex characteristics" page contain? Trankuility (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should be WP:BOLD and do what you suggest to this page. You've excluded the possibility of it being a disambiguation page, you've stated that it duplicates biology material, you've said it can't contain legal material. I'm not certain what is left. Trankuility (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not state that the page can't contain legal material. After all, a WP:Broad concept article would mean that the legal aspect is included. As for "Information about the legal aspects should either have its own section in the Sex characteristics article", I meant what we see in the article now -- a section about the legal aspects. But the article should not be mostly composed of legal material; I've repeatedly made that clear. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So change it, please. Trankuility (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from the WP:Biology request. Looking at this article, it doesn't seem to me to be redundant to the various biological articles, because it's mostly about legal matters - although a hatnote to that effect might be helpful ("this article is about the legal term...") On the other hand, I am less convinced that it isn't redundant to intersex human rights, although, to be honest, at its current level of development I'm not terribly clear what exactly it's about. Anaxial (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from WP:ANATOMY. I agree with Anaxial this article has content that isn't duplicated elsewhere. I also agree with Flyer22 that the scope of the article, if defined by the title "Sex characteristics" is duplicated elsewhere. I suggest move to a better title such as Legal defintions of sex which better clarifies the scope and reflects the actual contents of the article. Many thanks also to Trankuility for uploading and editing this interesting content on Wikipedia :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anaxial and LT910001 (Tom), thanks for weighing in. I am open to changing the name of this article, but I don't think it should be titled "Legal definitions of sex"; this is because people will no doubt mostly associate the "sex" aspect with sexual activity, and we already cover the legal aspects of sexual activity in other articles, such as Human sexual activity. Since the sources Trankuility used are about sexual characteristics, titling the article Legal definitions of sexual characteristics would be better. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'd support that move. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend use of the actual term under discussion, and not a variation of it. And this page would need to disambiguate all relevant terms.. Trankuility (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just commented on the disambiguation proposal above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trankuility, Anaxial and LT910001, we also have this article and the Sexual characteristics article. A merge definitely needs to happen. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I propose that this article be merged into the Sex characteristics article due to being a WP:Redundant fork. We do not need both. I will alert WP:Anatomy and WP:Med to the matter. Also see the discussion above on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]