Talk:Sex differences in psychology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Reverted edit 11-21 - The case of David Reimer[edit]

My edit was reverted on November 21 on adding the case of David Reimer to the gender reassignment section. While I am not usually a proponent of single cases, the particular case of David Reimer is ubiquitously well-know and unique in the medical literature in regards to gender reassignment. No similar cases are known where gender reassignment happened in similar circumstances to a completely healthy infant with no sexual differentiation disorder. The section lacks content and has been "expand section" tagged which was one of the reasons for my contribution. Until or unless there are rigorous studies or research on gender reassignment (which is highly unlikely for ethical reasons), I believe that the case or Reimer serves its purpose for the section of gender reassignment.147.129.136.33 (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, looking back it does seem well sourced, and one of the faults I had with it at first was that it used the NYtimes (but I now see that isn't the main source). Anyway, the text is decent, it would preferably be sourced to a review article/book (although for biographical information that may be hard even though for this case there should be a bit), but is just somewhat too long for this article. It fits better in either of the sub-articles Gender identity or Gender role with a much shorter summary in this article. For example instead of mentioning his twin brother as a control, when he stopped identifying as female, or his suicide – and it may be better to say that he from an early age never identified as female, and how this likely caused mental health problems throughout most of his adult life.
I know I might be picky, but I have this article as one of those I really want to give a decent runthrough and clean up/improve, so while the content isn't perfect, I want to avoid introducing too much bloat. CFCF 💌 📧 21:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense. I will abridge the original text and add additional sources according to what you have mentioned. There was actually book written about the case. I will include that as a new source. 147.129.138.165 (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Here's a WP:MEDRS study of 14 subjects, not just one.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022236
Discordant Sexual Identity in Some Genetic Males with Cloacal Exstrophy Assigned to Female Sex at Birth
William G. Reiner and John P. Gearhart
N Engl J Med 2004; 350:333-341
10.1056/NEJMoa022236
Cloacal exstrophy is a rare, complex defect of the entire pelvis and its contents that occurs during embryogenesis and is associated with severe phallic inadequacy or phallic absence in genetic males.
--Nbauman (talk) 06:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Sexual strategies theory[edit]

The Sexual Strategies Theory by David Buss and David P. Schmitt is a comprehensive evolutionary psychology theory regarding female and male short-term and long-term mating strategies which are argued to be dependent on several different goals and vary depending on the environment. Men and women are predicted to have both similar and different strategies depending on the circumstances. For instance, long- term mating could result in female selection of consistent behavior in males.[1] The theory included many predictions that could be empirically tested. The theory is argued to have received extensive empirical support in subsequent research. It has also been developed further.[2] Terri D. Conley et al. has argued that other empirical evidence support smaller or non-existing gender differences and social theories such as stigma, socialization, and double standards.[3]

  1. ^ Schuett, Wiebke; Tregenza, Tom; Dull, Sasha R. X. (2009-08-19). "Sexual selection and animal personality". Biological Reviews. 85 (2): 217–246. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2009.00101.x. PMID 19922534. 
  2. ^ Buss, David Michael; Schmitt, David P. (2011). "Evolutionary Psychology and Feminism". Sex Roles. 64 (9–10): 768–787. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9987-3. 
  3. ^ Conley, T. D.; Moors, A. C.; Matsick, J. L.; Ziegler, A.; Valentine, B. A. (2011). "Women, Men, and the Bedroom: Methodological and Conceptual Insights That Narrow, Reframe, and Eliminate Gender Differences in Sexuality". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 20 (5): 296–300. doi:10.1177/0963721411418467. 

I've removed this paragraph to avoid placing undue WP:WEIGHT on the theories of individual researchers, or on non-mainstream theories; while this paragraph uses WP:WEASEL words to describe the theory, there's no indication here of its actual standing of among mainstream scholars. I've also added a summary of the use of evolutionary biology and other theories to explain gender differences in human sexuality, so the topic is currently well covered in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology theories are prominent in explaining sexual differences. Very far from "individual researcher" hobby implied.
example 1: "The evolution of Desire" which summarizes David Buss massive sexual desire studies is cited 2500 times per google scholar [1] (massive = 37 cultures huge number of cultures and studies with huge number of collaborators involved)
I have no doubt the edit was in good faith. But Sexual strategies theory is hugely known.
example 2: "Sexual strategies theory" is cited 3744 per google scholar [2]. Hardly a fringe section to remove Jazi Zilber (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that we should mention something about sexual strategy theories, but Sangdeboeuf has a point about not placing too much weight on individual researchers' theories/studies. Often, a lot of WP:Student editors add a lot of David Buss material, when the material should usually be minimal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
David Buss is a mere name. There is a huge scholarship body that builds and develops on those key insights. This is just the base on which a huge scholarship is developing and has developed.
I personally find many other theories to be flimsy. But my editing tries to reflects whether a mentioned thing is a known view in the literature vs. some blogger of Op-Ed.
If we want to prune out anything that is not an absolute consensus we will start having multiple judgment calls that are far beyond wikipedia work, and more like journal editor work etc. neither of us can consider such nuanced issues decisively unless we have very solid grounds to build on Jazi Zilber (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
When it comes to consensus in the literature, we do need to keep WP:Due and WP:Fringe in mind; I think that is the main point regarding what is well known, lesser known, or barely discussed regarding this topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)