Talk:Sex–gender distinction/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Biological sex

According to @Crossroads:, the only definition of sex worth coverage in this article comes from biologists. This is strange, because when we look up articles related to the "sex-gender distinction", this narrow biological definition of sex is given marginal coverage at best. It's almost as though we make up our very own sex-gender distinction, rather than summarising the reliable sources on the topic. The "sex" in the "sex-gender distinction is not the same thing as the "sex" in biology class. But, not only does Crossroads continue to give undue weight to this narrow biological definition that is rarely used in opposition to gender when we discuss the topic, he is now actively preventing other, more usual, descriptions of what sex means in this context from appearing in the article. The only time such a narrow definition appears in the literature, it takes the form of, "well, technically gamete size=sex, but actually... (much broader description goes here...)"

It's like purging the Mind–body dualism article of all mention of Aristotle and Descartes, and only allowing modern biological definitions of "mind". Since people here are usually very quick to tell me that my analogies suck, I am surprised that nobody ever responds to this one...

And again.. 181 page watchers, 37 recent edits visitors... and only Crossroads reverts at 5am... perhaps the viewpoint that sex should only be defined by biologists in this article is not shared?

To put it plainly, we should be giving more weight to the definition of sex as it is used within the context of the notable topic, the "sex-gender distinction", even if and especially if this definition differs from that used by biologists. Tewdar (talk) 09:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

So, is this article the "sex cell and gender distinction"? Or is it the "sex differences in humans and gender distinction"? Because if it's the former, we have to get rid of all the other non-gamete based definitions, including dictionaries, the WHO, sociologists, psychologists, feminists, governments, activist groups........... Tewdar (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I never said anything about getting rid of any other definitions. I don't know why you then removed this. I was fine with that. The APA mentioned those various things as indicators of sex. But here, one sociologist was quoted in great detail, and it was presented as though sex is determined by each of those, which is confusing and sort of contradictory. What if someone has XX chromosomes, a vagina, etc. but has hyperandrogenism from PCOS? As stated, that person is 80% female, 20% male. Per WP:DUE, that isn't how sex works, and probably not even in sociology. Any social understanding of sex is supposed to actually be gender, right? Maybe the source says it a bit differently. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

"What if someone has XX chromosomes, a vagina, etc. but has hyperandrogenism from PCOS?" - hey, now that is a question, isn't it? (Check the quote below!!!) That's probably one of the reasons that "sex" in the "sex-gender distinction" actually means "human sex differences" and not "gamete size differences in all species". Perhaps you could answer some of my concerns above next time, tomorrow morning 5am GMT, during your allotted 73 seconds for this article... Tewdar (talk) 07:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Apparently, then, lexicographers like Merriam-Webster are permitted to ("erroneously!") define sex in this article, but sociologists are not! How "confusing and sort of contradictory", it's almost as though not everybody on the planet agrees about everything. I'm sure that there's a marvellous explanation for that one... Tewdar (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

If the authors of the sex-gender distinction literature are really defining sex in the same way as the "Biologists" section, why aren't we quoting their work? Why are we quoting a bunch of random biologists, some of them from the 80s, who aren't even writing about the sex-gender distinction? Tewdar (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh no, modern conceptions of the mind don't align with those in the Mind–body dualism article, and, worse, it gives WP:UNDUE weight to pre-modern philosophers like Aristotle instead of modern biology. Let's redefine "mind" properly for stupid Aristotle, lest the reader be confused by this... Tewdar (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

"Maybe the source says it a bit differently" - not even a little tiny bit differently. I have taken great care not to misrepresent anything. Tewdar (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "In agreement with this, the word sex in this work will refer to the male or the female sex and the component biological parts that determine whether one is a male or a female" - "Sex and Gender: The Development of Masculinity and Femininity", pg vi : stupid Professor Stoller, he clearly knows nothing about the sex-cell/gender distinction! Tewdar (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• To determine sex, one must assay the following physical conditions: chromosomes, external genitalia, internal genitalia (e.g., uterus, prostate), gonads, hormonal states, and secondary sex characteristics. (It seems likely that in the future another criterion will be added: brain systems.) One's sex, then, is determined by an algebraic sum of all these qualities, and, as is obvious, most people fall under one of two separate bell curves, the one of which is called "male," the other "female." - Stoller again, pg 9 - who is this idiot?! It's not like he appears in every book ever written about the sex-gender distinction or anything , is it?!?! Tewdar (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "'Sex' is a word that refers to the biological differences between male and female: the visible difference in genitalia, the related difference in procreative function." - Sex, Gender and Society p16 - stupid Ann Oakley, hasn't she read WP:DUE? Sex == sex cells, duuuuuuh!? Tewdar (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Yet, no clear definition of biological sex exists. For example, doctors have used different methods to determine a person’s “true” sex: genitalia and gonadal tissue in the nineteenth century; gonadal tissue, hormones, and eventually chromosomes in the twentieth century; and, in the second half of the twentieth century, psychological sex" - https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/abs/one-hundred-years-of-instability-sex-law-and-transgender-rights/99EE6080950399925EE8D0E3A7102992 Stupid political scientists! Don't they know it's all about the gametes these days?! Tewdar (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "When Dr. Deanna Adkins called this “an extremely outdated view of biological sex” in her declaration to a federal court in North Carolina, Dr. Mayer responded in his rebuttal declaration: “This statement is stunning. I have searched dozens of references in biology, medicine and genetics—even Wiki! — and can find no alternative scientific definition. In fact, the only references to a more fluid definition of biological sex are in the social policy literature." - https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/03/21151/ - stupid social policy literature! Thank goodness we have experts like Ryan T. Anderson for the Witherspoon Institute to uphold the one true definition of biological sex! Tewdar (talk) 13:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: it's hard to engage with you if you keep making tons of long comments like this.

Also I feel like you fail understand what we mean when we say have an issue with some of the sources you preset at times.CycoMa (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: You don't think Robert Stoller and Ann Oakley should be permitted to define their own terminology, then? Tewdar (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: I remember you said something about sources being from the 80s. I can make the same argument against Robert Stoller he has been dead for over 30 years, also your criticism about sources being from the 80s doesn't work because I have backed up those sources with more recent ones, one of the sources I cited was from 2019.

Also not sure why you are putting Public discourse in here. Public discourse isn’t an ideal in general source and no one brought if up.CycoMa (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I am utterly speechless that, out of all I typed, my side comment about the 80s is what you have chosen to respond to. I will strike it out. Tewdar (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Here's my main point, just in case you missed it: The 'sex' in the 'sex-gender distinction' is not the same thing as the 'sex' in biology class. Tewdar (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: sorry it was hard to tell that because your text was too long and hard too read. I now understand your argument and I can totally understand your mindset. Just keep this in mind when it comes to discussions on Wikipedia sometimes less is more.CycoMa (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

It was only the 10th/11th line of text (on a mobile device). I cannot tell if your reply is sarcasm or not, but I'll assume that it is until told otherwise... Tewdar (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Sarcasm wasn’t my intention and sarcasm is rarely my intention on Wikipedia.CycoMa (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: Oh. Well, good to know. So you wouldn't mind me adding a more 'sociological' definition of sex, then? Tewdar (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I think we're recycling old discussions here. If we have concrete proposals on the table, it might be wise to seek out moderation—maybe WP:DRN. I think many of us share a feeling of exhaustion at debates in this article and closely related ones; in particular, I know there are contributors and talk page watchers who may be monitoring discussion but too frustrated to engage.

For what it's worth, I support including sociological and psychological understandings of sex. Sociologists are telling us that societies have a more complex understanding of human sex than just gametes. Psychologists are telling us that individuals' are comprehending their own or others' sex using factors besides just gametes. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I think it's pretty obvious that the literature in this area uses 'sex' differently to how a biologist might define it. Crossroads is just being intransigent. Note that I am not arguing to remove the biological definition, just add other, more relevant ones. Tewdar (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: I guess I don’t mind a more sociological definition of sex. But, do keep in mind even they don’t always agree with each other on definitions. Honestly I’m kinda just waiting for what Crossroads thinks.CycoMa (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Did you check the edit history? Also, the WHO, governments, dictionaries etc. are already in the article, "wrongly" defining sex! I'm not sure what Crossroads' game is, but it is not consistent... Tewdar (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: I did I’m just in the deciding situation. Right now I’m waiting for other editors to say something.CycoMa (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Here's the disputed content: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/1047128438&type=revision Tewdar (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I think Crossroads' revert trimming for this was contextually wrong. A sociologist is naturally going to have a different view on this than a biologist, as is a psychologist. That view might be wider or narrower. Given that contextually that section is discussing how the various fields define the differences between sex and gender, I feel like the full list is appropriate, especially as the very next subsection on psychologists also makes some of the same claims; chromosones, gonads, and genitalia. As such I would support re-adding that section, as well as increasing the amount of content in the psychologists section at least to put it on par with the biologists section. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Crossroads didn’t remove that section. He just trimmed down what Tewdar added because Crossroads was arguing that it was relying on a single individual’s argument.

But, anyway I’m not too sure the statents Tewdar are a putting is a widespread

view so I’m just gonna wait a bit. I mean I’m not sure how widespread they are in the sociological sciences.CycoMa (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: Why not read some books and articles about the sex-gender distinction? Then, you might be able to make meaningful contributions instead of just saying, "well, I don't really know anything about this subject, but my biology textbook says,,," Tewdar (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

"trimmed down" LOL Tewdar (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: my apologies. I've substituted revert for trimming. I stand by the rest of my comment however. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: here’s the thing Crossroads was basically saying that Tewdar was going into deep on a single sociologist. So even if we are trying to present the sociological view on the matter it’s hard to tell if the contribution Tewdar made was the majority view in the social sciences.CycoMa (talk) 03:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: I have by the way. Also did you pay attention to what Crossroads said. I think that’s one thing you have a hard time understanding. He said you quoted one sociologist in great detail. Also didn’t Crossroads say something about any social understanding of sex being about gender?CycoMa (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Like @Tewdar: I don’t disagree with you on the notion that this article not being a biology article.CycoMa (talk) 03:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, I've now waded through all of that. The sarcasm was not needed, and for normal argumentation, many times less is more. Anyway, the removal I made which sparked this quoted a sociologist who said that "sex in humans is determined biologically" by those 5 factors (emphasis added). So far as I can tell, the point being made is that removing this sort of thing excludes sociological definitions of sex, and that this is POV on my part (although I am also being yelled at since some sources already in the article say similar, so if I'm so bad, why hasn't that been cut?). There was no reason to cut those sections entirely as Tewdar did here. If you want to add that sort of thing, then more context from the source should probably be added, and it shouldn't read as 'sociologist says biology is determined this way' like it did before. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Sociologists are permitted to state what they think sex is biologically determined by. They are also permitted to be 100% wrong about this. Just like Descartes is free to tell us what he thinks 'mind' is. What we don't do, is write an article about what sociologists, gender theorists, sexologists, etc. say about the sex-gender distinction, and then not allow them to define the terms they are using. In other words, it really should read as "(a particular, notable, respected in their field) sociologist says biology is determined this way" Tewdar (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, to deal with the "one sociologist in so-called 'great' detail" claim: the removed content is an excellent approximation to how 'sex' is perceived and defined by many on this topic. I am happy to add Oakley, and non-sociologist Stoller, and many others. It's a bit rich telling me there's only one source, then removing that source! And telling me that, as well as being 'great' detail, we need more detail! At this point, I think we have left rationality behind. Tewdar (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

"More context from the source should probably be added" okay, here's some more context - the heading in the source is "Five Biological Definitions of Sex" - is that enough context for you? Tewdar (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: you are right sociologist are in the right to say what they think about biological sex. And yeah you are right in the whole that they can be wrong. But, I am kinda in the mindset that we are gonna represent the sociological perspective, it’s probably best to see what most most sociologists think.CycoMa (talk) 13:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: Yeah, I added a different one. Same sort of thing. Also, 'disputed' Prof Poston pretty much nicked his definitions from Oakley and Stoller anyway. Feel free to add sociologists who see things differently, if you find any. Tewdar (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• So anyhow, by my count, after three(!) days of interminable discussion over a single bleddy source, it's three and a half to one against the assertion that there is "no good reason to quote a sociologist for biological claims". So, when is 'consensus' achieved? Or do we just have to wait until Crossroads changes his mind, even if it's 100:1? Tewdar (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Last time I was in a discussion like this I gave a 24 hour notice before saying I'd be WP:BOLD and just do it. There were no objections during that time, so once the timer ran out I made the add. Friendly suggestion though Tewdar, tone down the direct comments targeted at Crossroads just a little. I know it's frustrating when an edit is reverted or blocked, but there's no need to antagonise each other :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm trying hard to be civil. It's just that last time there was a discussion of a similar type involving a similar cast of editors, about whether 'gender' included behaviours or something, it was like four to one against a certain nameless editor, and that never got changed either because of some bizarre decision making mechanism which I am apparently unaware of. Or something. But anyhow, I'll try and tone it down a bit more (I'm much less hostile than when I first joined! 😁)

Also, I find the constant reverting stuff on this family of articles bizarre. If this was almost any other topic, it'd be like, "yeah, looks alright, notable professor, citation checks out, good to go..." Tewdar (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I both understand and share your concerns. There is a reason why there are special sanctions in place for gender and sexuality articles, as there is a lot of bad faith editing and reverting given the "debate" in this area both on site and more widely in society. My best advice would to be persistent, if something looks like it's not following Wiki policies in the talk pages to challenge it referring to the rules when doing so, and where possible get familiar with the rules that may be...creatively interpreted to block certain additions. Not saying that is or is not happening here, as I don't want to cast any WP:ASPERSIONS against any specific editor. Just that it happens more generally than I'm comfortable with in this topic area. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that the "specific editor" in question is taking advantage of any Wikirules, I just think that they, and others, have a bizarre interpretation of what is and is not acceptable for this set of articles. This series of articles is particularly crappy, it seems like they defy improvement, probably because adding/changing/removing content is so difficult. Tewdar (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, only five hours until we find out if "The Oxford Handbook of Feminist Theory"(!) is WP:DUE or not... I might set my alarm clock! 😁👍 Tewdar (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps. But if you are familiar with Wiki policy and rules, it becomes much easier to make convincing arguments when they are interpreted in a non-standard way, or that the changes you're proposing are generally considered acceptable. For example I have had an editor creatively interpret a WP:RSP entry against a change I proposed, and it was only through reading what the entry for that organisation actually said that I was able to challenge their point. While I wasn't able to convince that editor, I was able to address their concerns to other editors in that discussion to their satisfaction, which is part of WP:CON building. And I just want to make clear, I'm not talking about any one editor and I'm not casting WP:ASPERSIONS. It's a behaviour I've seen from multiple editors across this topic field, and a somewhat understandable one given the strong feelings discussions on sexuality and gender invoke at the current time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'm fine with this. We done now? I don't appreciate the continued polemics against me, but hopefully editors will stop assuming bad faith in the future. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

No, we are definitely not done. Can I restore the originally disputed content, or not? Nobody here has said, "yes, Crossroads was right to remove it", and at least two others have said you were wrong. So, perhaps I don't have consensus to add the content, but you certainly don't have consensus to remove it. See ya in 20 hours... Tewdar (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, I'm not assuming bad faith. We're just disagreeing about what may be and may not be added to the article, is all. Tewdar (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Here's that disputed content in full:

Sociologist Dudley Poston states that sex in humans is "determined biologically in five ways":

[For the avoidance of any doubt, this section is entitled, Five Biological Definitions of Sex]

1. Based on chromosomes: males have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome, and females have two X chromosomes.
2. Based on gonads, which produce the gametes and sex hormones: testes in males and ovaries in females.
3. Based on relative levels of sex-specific hormones, e.g. usually higher levels of testosterone in males and higher levels of estrogen in females.
4. Based on internal reproductive structures: Two sets of ducts develop differently depending on whether the embryo is male or female - in males, Wolffian ducts, and in females, Mullerian ducts develop into the appropriate internal apparatus.
5. Based on sex-specific external genitals, i.e. penis and scrotal sac in males, and vagina and clitoris in females. This definition usually results in the assignment of sex at birth.

• This next bit should be in the lede really, such is its ubiquitousness, but I expect we can discuss this next month or something...

According to Poston, "[s]ex refers mainly to biological characteristics, while gender refers mainly to sociological characteristics." Tewdar (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Poston's book is £123 for the ebook, or £180 for the hardcover! Perhaps you can get a preview on Google Books or something, but make absolutely sure that you're looking at the same edition that I'm using... Tewdar (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Here's the link if you want to check the "context"... https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QsiSDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:9783030109103&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Tewdar (talk) 10:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads: - Since you appear to be up early/late, what say you? 🤔 Tewdar (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

It'd be one of the longest entries, but I'm done objecting. I'm not going to try to filibuster it, others agreed with you, so... Crossroads ^-talk- 18:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: this is the same argument over and over again. My god, this is honestly annoying at this point. It is making it hard to actually agree with your arguments at this point. You are doing what @Crossroads: said at the start of this whole thing. Acting like one scholar is the answer to everything. Also, all the things you just listed didn't say are the definition of sex. What you just listed are things that determine sex, not define sex. Sex determination and the definition of biological sex aren't the same thing. Like all I am asking you is to make your comments shorter and wait for other people to respond.CycoMa (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: - Not sure what brought that outburst out. You seem to have misinterpreted, well, just about everything really. Nobody is forcing you to join in, you know... @Crossroads: great, I'll add it in and trim it a bit, thanks. Tewdar (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa - "Five Biological Definitions of Sex" is the section title in that book... Tewdar (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: I oppose its inclusion I read the source I doesn't say what you think it says.CycoMa (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa - "Acting like one scholar is the answer to everything" - this is exactly the opposite of what I'm doing. Tewdar (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: - what do you think it says, that differs to what I think it says? Tewdar (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: okay sorry about that outburst but anyway. I looked at the source apparently the author is conflating sex determination and the definition of biological sex.CycoMa (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes I know what I said about this not being a biology article but, at the same time, some of these come off as speaking with ignorance.CycoMa (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: - no, you are mistaken. It's not ignorance... think of it more like, 'sex' is being used as a shorthand for "sex differences in humans", perhaps? Tewdar (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: also he treated sexual differentiation as the same as sex determination. Although they are connected they aren't the same thing.CycoMa (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: - Exactly. Like I keep saying, the 'sex' in "sex-gender distinction" usually refers to "human sex differences", not gametes... Tewdar (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: you are not wrong on that sex and gender distinction are used in the human context. But, even in the human context sexual differentiation and sex determination are different.CycoMa (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Look, I'm going to add the content and trim it down. If you can find reliable sources to say that sociology and demography is a load of bollocks, feel free to add them. Tewdar (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: how about this just say that Poston argues there are five definitions of biological sex. Don't mention the sex determined by five factors.CycoMa (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cyco,no,that's not a very good suggestion. It is so utterly vacuous and devoid of detail that this solution should be rejected by all people. Why aren't you moaning about the other guy who says sex is an algebraic sum of chromosomes, hormones, internal + external genitalia....? Tewdar (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Just to come back to "acting like one scholar is the answer to everything" again - this is pretty offensive actually. I have added sources from psychiatry, psychology, feminist theory, sociology, and also biology. This statement is an offensive falsehood. Tewdar (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Also by the way sex determination is basically the same across all mammal species. So it’s odd to make arguments like that.CycoMa (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: I know how sex is defined and determined, thank you. They taught me that in school. And college. And university. So please stop "educating" me. The only 'argument' I am making is that notable views in reliable sources should be put here on Wikipedia. Tewdar (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: that’s not even an notable view. It’s merely a case of some guy being confused on sex determination.CycoMa (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: I bet he knows the difference between psychology and psychiatry, though. Tewdar (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: that’s kinda a Ad Hominem.CycoMa (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure Springer always hire "some guy" to write their £180 a pop handbooks... Tewdar (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure if "acting like one scholar is the answer to everything" is a fair criticism here. Poston is notable enough as an academic to have a rather substantial article in his own right, and seems to be prolific across multiple sociological subfields both in terms of academic research and published books. Unless there's another source from his peers that says his definition is fringe, it seems fair to include it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what's wrong with CycoMa this evening, but I'm sure he'll feel better within the next couple of days. Tewdar (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: and @Tewdar: guys like I said sex determination and sexual differentiation aren't the same. Most scholars treat them as different. So this is WP:UNDUE.CycoMa (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: I'm going to re-read this entire talk page section, but I don't see the distinction you're trying to make, in the context of the article for which these changes are being proposed. Perhaps you could assist in why you think this is WP:UNDUE, as by my reading the first two sections in the article are saying how sex and gender are separately defined and respectively determined. As such, commentary from a prolific sociologist on how sociologists define sex is WP:DUE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: sexual differentiation is about the development of secondary sex characteristics. Sex determination is about primary sex characteristics. The source Tewdar is adding acts like they are the same thing.CycoMa (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: that doesn't answer my question. It's also erroneous, given that the proposed addition includes not only secondary sex characteristics as you point out, but primary sex characteristics. From a sociological perspective both are valid characteristics when determining sex. I'll add that this duality of definition also appears true from a biological perspective, as a distinction is made between primary sex determination and secondary sex determination.

Applying the biological primary/secondary distinctions to the quote from Poston; chromosomes and gonads are primary sex characteristics, genitalia, hormone levels, and Müllerian or Wolffian ducts are secondary sex characteristics. Both are used in determining of an organism, or in this case a human's sex. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

This is bollocks. Tewdar (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: here’s a more recent source. [Right here.]CycoMa (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Here’s another source https://academic.oup.com/endo/article/142/8/3281/2988779 .23:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Also @Sideswipe9th: you kinda proved my point that sex determination is the same in mammals.CycoMa (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Also I’m not sure about mentioning sex determination in the article in general. It’s a little unrelated to the subject of the article.CycoMa (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Luckily, we can default to renowned experts on the subject to determine what is related to "the subject of the article", instead of relying on random editors who don't even know the difference between psychology and psychiatry giving us the "benefit" of their arbitrary opinions. Tewdar (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: oh wait you stated that it was determined by five factors. Sorry I misread it, thinking it was saying sex is define five ways. I guess I don’t have too much of a problem with that.CycoMa (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Sorry I was off my meds today.CycoMa (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

"Sorry I was off my meds today" - No shit, Sherlock!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tewdar (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry @CycoMa: but the twelfth edition of the same text that I linked before, which was published in February of 2020 makes the same distinction as the sixth edition which I linked previously. Alongside "Principles of Development" by Wolpert and Tickle, this work by Gilbert is the most frequently used textbook for teaching developmental biology at college and university level. I'll note that while I can provide a citation for the 12th edition, I cannot link the text directly as it is not freely available, whereas the 6th edition is freely available.

Setting those points aside for the moment. The first piece that you linked by Arthur P Arnold is a proposed alternative theory for sexual differentiation, published in November 2016. Without doing a substantial literature review, or having a copy of one linked I cannot establish the provenance of the theory. I also have concerns about this piece as it is very largely self referential to Arnold's older works as the basis for this new theory. As part of this proposed theory, it classifies chromosomal factors as the sole primary factor in sexual differentiation, and not as you said sex determination. As such this would put it in conflict with the works by Gilbert, and Wolpert and Tickle, in that those both put chromosomal factors as a primary factor in sexual determination, not sexual definition.

The second piece, by Ieuan A Hughes, is not more recent, it was published in August 2001. Secondly while it is a mini literature review, it makes clear that chromosomal factors are part of sexual determination and links to prior literature reviews from around the time of its publishing that also make that distinction. As such it supports the works of Gilbert, and Wolpert and Tickle, in part, but also differs from it by putting hormonal factors into sexual differentiation, and ignoring gonads, genitalia, and internal sexual organs entirely.

From this brief overview of these three works, what the exact criteria of both sexual determination and sexual differentiation are not so universally defined. Some works, like the two textbooks I have mentioned, put the five factors that Poston uses, into either primary or secondary sexual characteristics within the field of sexual determination. The other two works that you have provided, put some of the criteria that Poston uses into primary sexual characteristics for sexual determination, and the others into the field of sexual differentiation.

So I do not believe I have proven your point here. If anything I believe I have shown that the differences between sexual determination and sexual differentiation are not so clearly defined, with no universal accepted definition within the field of biology. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• The section, as I have stated a few times now, is entitled "Five Biological Definitions of Sex", so you may well still have a problem with it. Tewdar (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• And, ***Tewdar*** is not stating ***anything***!!! Tewdar (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: technically it isn’t. Saying it’s Determined is way better than saying defined.CycoMa (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: per my rebuttal above, the distinction between determined and defined is not universally agreed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: here’s what I have to say to that. That depends on who you ask and which field of academia you ask. That’s one the article is currently like this because different fields of academia have their own interpretations on the matter. But hey that’s okay.CycoMa (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, this does seem to be veering into FORUM discussion. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• What evidence have you (any of you) that the 'sex' in the 'sex-gender distinction' is the same 'sex' that is defined by gamete size differences? The "Biologists" section does not appear to mention sex-gender differences at all. How can we be sure they are the same thing, without using WP:SYNTH and WP:OR? Sometimes, 'water' and 'water' have different definitions, depending on the context. Confusing, but true. Tewdar (talk) 07:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Or, to put it another way: I am fairly sure that I could make a fairly strong (and lengthy) argument for the complete removal of so-called "biological" so-called "definitions" of so-called "sex" from this article. At the moment, the article tries to be inclusive. Perhaps it should be less so. Tewdar (talk) 07:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: I guess this article is a little too inclusive on the topic. I guess reliability depends on context.CycoMa (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

"guess this article is a little too inclusive on the topic" - glad you agree. I'll start removing those WP:UNDUE biological definitions of sex that are based entirely on gamete size differences, then. Tewdar (talk) 08:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: it would only be put back in unless I find a source that mentions the sex and gender distinction.CycoMa (talk) 08:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: for the mean time remove it. When I find a source that mentions it alongside sex and gender distinction it will go back in is that fine by you?CycoMa (talk) 08:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, that was supposed to be a joke. On the other hand, it would be legitimately useful to find a biology book or article that says, "yeah, this is how sex is defined, as opposed to gender, which is..." - happy searching! 😁👍 Tewdar (talk) 08:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Just want to add I support Tewdar's changes noting sex, especially in the context of this article, is multivariate. Multiple high quality RS in biology and sociology talk about this, like [Nature https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/]. Rab V (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Rab V: by the way the author of that said [this] on Twitter. Not sure what this proves ,but if you are arguing for more than 2 biological sexes yeh the author disagrees with your narrative. Also I’m not even sure why you are bringing that in this discussion it’s irrelevant to what any of the things we were saying.CycoMa (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

That is not what I'm arguing; just that multiple variables are used to define sex humans besides gamete size. The source discusses that which is why I brought it up. Unclear why you are confused since I didn't mention anything about more than 2 sexes and unclear why you'd bring that up if you are unsure what it proves anyway. Rab V (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Rab V: you people speak about “the definition of biological sex in humans” here’s why that mindset is problematic. The theory of evolution proved that humans are just one of millions of species that evolved, and changed over time. As well as all species being related.

Sex determination, sex characteristics, and and sexual reproduction are so diverse across species.

This is in the biological sciences use they anisogamy for definition to biological sex. Because it’s one feature you can find in almost all species.CycoMa (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Also @Rab V: your own source doesn’t even really prove your argument.CycoMa (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: what Claire Ainsworth is describing in that tweet is a bimodal distribution, which fits in with the more modern interpretations of defining sex. The original binary model was that you were male, female, or intersex (formerly hermaphrodite). As we've discovered more about genetics, and gotten more accurate at determining the relative rarity/commonality of the various intersex conditions, it's become clear that a strict binary/ternary model is not an accurate representation. If you have that in mind when reading the final section "Beyond the Binary", you'll realise that it's not a problematic mindset, but just that our understanding of what sex actually is has significantly changed over the last ten to twenty years since the completion of the human genome project. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: um I’m sorry but you misread her tweet. She made it very clear there is two sexes, you making that statement technically comes off as WP:OR. Also bimodal distributions are typically used when talking about two distinct groups having similarities.

Also are you aware humans are classified as a gonochoric species. Gonochorsim literally means a species has either a male or female sex, our species being classified as gonochoric hasn’t changed at all.CycoMa (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: I'm sorry but I dispute that this is WP:OR. Both Rab V and I have cited reliable secondary sources for what we are saying. The title of the work that Rab cited is "Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic". The tweet reads "No, not at all. Two sexes, with a continuum of variation in anatomy/physiology." Emphasis mine. By the very definition of the word, that is a bimodal distribution, with two distinct peaks for male and female and intersex somewhere inbetween. Hopefully that image links, as it illustrates what I mean if not because they block deeplinks, I'll link to the article and tell you where in it that the image is. The very first person talked about in the article by Ainsworth, which is in the second paragraph, has both XX and XY chromosomal cells in her body. In a strict binary model, that is not possible. You are either XX, or XY. In a bimodal distribution, that is possible.

Also please note that this also fits in with the textbook that I referenced last night, in that there are multiple criteria biologists use when determining, not defining sex. Chromosomes is one criteria, gonads is another. Chapter 6 of Developmental Biology, 12th edition, states that there are primary and secondary sex determination characteristics used in mammals. Primary characteristics are chromosomes and gonads. Secondary characteristics are hormone levels, genitalia, and internal reproductive structures.

Your argument seems to be that gamete size is the only determining factor for sex in humans. If that were true, then you would only ever see males who produce sperm, and females who produce ova. However we know that is not true. Even before you enter the realm of intersex conditions, we know there are males who will produce no sperm, and females who will produce no ova at any point during their lives. They are still male or female because we use other characteristics in determining sex. Likewise we also know that chromosomes are also not a reliable sole factor in determining sex, per the list on Intersex, as there are a number of possible variations of the 47th chromosome. This is why, per the text I cited earlier, that there are multiple primary and secondary criteria used when determining sex. And this is why I'm disputing your point, as it is overly simplistic and not reflective of what developmental biologists actually use. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Finally your definition of gonochorism is overly simplistic. Gonochorism does not mean that an individual is one of only two sexes, it means that they are one of at least two or more sexes. I know the Gonochroism article cites "A Dictionary of Genetics 7th edition" for that definition, and I also know there is at least one or possibly two newer revisions printed since that may have changed that definition, however I'm unable to find the text of those newer editions to confirm. That said, I'd also question the relevance of bringing that up, as it seems like a distraction from the issue we're talking about; that there are multiple relevant criteria used when determining sex, not just gamete size. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: gamete size is the definition not determining factor they aren’t the same thing. Also I’m not the one who put that in the article. That has been in here since 2017, [|just look at this diff]. You keep doing this whole thing where you treat determination and definitions as the same thing.

Also read her statement again

No, not at all. Two sexes, with a continuum of variation in anatomy/physiology.

Notice how she said not at all. She literally said Two sexes with a continuum in anatomy/physiology, she didn't say biological sex is a continuum. There is a difference between anatomy, physiology, and the definition of biological sex. I’m not entirely sure how you could read what she said in a different way.

Also Sex Redefined is from Nature News. News sources aren’t ideal sources.

Also here is the definition of gonochorism for you from [| Oxford].

A sexual system in which each individual is either a male or a female.

See that each individual is male or female.

[|Springerlink]] defines it like this.

Gonochorism is the condition of individual organisms within a species existing as one of two possible sexes, specifically male or female.

Also you misread the source on sexual systems. It defined gonochorism as

Gonochorism describes sexually reproducing species in which individuals have one of at least two distinct sexes

Not sure how you could misread it like that.

Also [this] is not a reliable source.CycoMa (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: I’m not sure why you brought up intersex it doesn’t add anything to your argument. Also the 47 intersex conditions, here’s the thing about many of those intersex conditions aren’t recognized as intersex by medical professionals. It’s actually kinda controversial what counts as intersex.CycoMa (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: I'm sorry but no. I am not confusing terms here. Quoting from the body of Developmental Biology, 12th Edition for primary sex determination: This determination of the gonad as female or male is called primary sex determination (or gonadal sex determination), and it is accomplished by the X and Y chromosomes that control the fate of the bipotential cells of the early gonad. The same definition from the glossary of the book: Primary sex determination (or gonadal sex determination) The determination of the gonads to form either the egg-forming ovaries or sperm-forming testes. Primary sex determination is chromosomal and is not usually influenced by the environment in mammals, but can be affected by the environment in other vertebrates. Next quoting from the body of Developmental Biology, 12th Edition for secondary sex determination: Once gonadal sex determination has established the gonads, the gonads begin to produce the hormones and paracrine factors that govern secondary sex determination—the development of the sexual phenotype outside the gonads. This includes the male or female duct systems and the external genitalia (FIGURE 6.2), discussed in detail later on in the chapter.. The same definition from the glossary of the book: Secondary sex determination Developmental events, directed by hormones produced by the gonads that affect the phenotype outside the gonads. This includes the male or female duct systems and external genitalia, and, in many species, sex-specific body size, vocal cartilage, and musculature.

Taking this textbook as read, gamete size is one of the two characteristics used in primary sex determination, the other being chromosomes. Secondary sex determination characteristics are hormone levels, external genitalia, and internal reproductive organs. This text book is very clear, it is not talking about sex differentiation, it is talking about sex determination. I have been similarly clear, I am talking about sex determination, not differentiation.

Next, what does continuum of variation if not a bimodal distribution? A continuum is not a binary. Source quality wise, while the link that Rab V provided was in Scientific American, however the original article was published in Nature. WP:RSP in the footnotes says This is the case for some of the most prestigious academic journals in the world, like Nature and The Lancet. As such I do not believe these criticisms of the reliability of this source are valid, the reliability of Nature editorials was previously discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard and as far as I can tell, these should hold the same weight as a journalistic article in the same publication.

I recognise the two definitions for gonochorism that have been provided. I recognise one of them from the lead of the Gonochorism article. However I have stated that I have two concerns with that definition. That there is a newer edition of "A Dictionary of Genetics" which may have a different definition, and that per the article that I cited, the definition in "A Dictionary of Genetics" is overly simplistic. I have tried to source the newer edition of "A Dictionary of Genetics" to see if it has changed, however I have been unable to do so. However even if this definition was unchanged in the newer edition, this does not address my concern that the definition in that dictionary is overly simplistic, and that biologists use a more complete definition that I have quoted for you.

I am grateful that the quote from the article I cited before has been copied here. The full quote is Gonochorism describes sexually reproducing species in which individuals have one of at least two distinct sexes (see Subramoniam, 2013). Emphasis mine. Note the emphasis at least two. At least two means two or more. I have not misread this section, nor have I misunderstood it.

I recognise that the image is not a reliable source. I am not advocating for it to be included in the article. I am merely using it as a visual aid, to illustrate the points that I have raised, that sex is not a binary. This is also why I brought up intersex conditions, because the very fact of their existence, no matter how rare, utterly disproves the ideas that sex in humans is a binary. This is because those conditions exist entirely outside of a binary model of sex. Depending on the condition, they are partially male and partially female. That some of the intersex conditions are controversial and disputed is immaterial to the point that I am making, because there are those like Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and XX male syndrome which are not controversial or disputed.

Please stop accusing me of misreading the sources I am citing here. And please stop accusing me of getting confused between sex determination and sex differentiation. That is a violation of WP:NPA and specifically WP:AVOIDYOU. Those are personal attacks and not needed to disprove the points that I am trying to raise. Attack my arguments, not me. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: none of the things you quoted said they are the definition of biological sex. Nor do they say anything about anisogamy.

Also I am not arguing that Nature isn’t a reliable source

As a matter of fact some papers from Nature agree with me this [| paper from Nature] (aka the same site y’all are citing) says this.

Male–female gamete size dimorphism is a fundamental trait found in most multicellular organisms including plants, animals, fungi, brown algae, red algae, and green algae, and has been a major topic of biological sciences since Charles Darwin first wrote on the topic of sexual selection1.

You want more [| here is another source from Nature.]

Sex-role evolution theory attempts to explain the origin and direction of male–female differences. A fundamental question is why anisogamy, the difference in gamete size that defines the sexes, has repeatedly led to large differences in subsequent parental care.

A fundamental question is why anisogamy, the difference in gamete size that defines the sexes, generally correlates with large differences in post-fertilization parental investment in the form of extended parental care. Why does greater investment per gamete (that is, producing eggs, which defines females) tend to be associated with providing more parental care?

See that two papers from Nature actually agree with me here, keep in mind the two papers I just linked where published after Sex Redefined.

Also Sex Redefined is a news sources.

According to what WP:NEWSORG says about news sources.

News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors).

See that the most reputable reports in news sources have errors.

Also with regards to this

if not a bimodal distribution? A continuum is not a binary. Source quality wise, while the link that Rab V provided was in Scientific American, however the original article was published

You seem confused what a bimodal distribution is.

Bimodal distributions are just a thing used in statistics to say two distinct groups have similarities and differences.

Males and Females have similarities and differences. But, they are still distinct groups.

Also you say concerns about the definition of Gonochorism. Um you do realize the definition of gonochorism in that article is supported from recent sources right? One of those sources is from 2020 and another is from 2019. So it doesn’t appear much has changed.

Also with regards to this quote.

Gonochorism describes sexually reproducing species in which individuals have one of at least two distinct sexes (see Subramoniam, 2013)

Notice the statement two distinct sexes. And pay attention to the word least, least literally means smallest in amount, extent, or significance. Judging by what you quoted there is no more than 2.CycoMa (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Please re-read the original comments under this section @CycoMa:. The discussion began on the determination of sex and indeed, multiple times both Tewdar and Crossroads talked about sex determination. In the field of biology, determination and definition have different meanings, I have not disputed this. In the field of sociology, they are used interchangeably. The interchangeability of the words is also true for other sciences who talk about this, and for the lay public.

One of the concerns raised was that sociologists are wrong in when they say that sex is determined by five criteria, the same five criteria that Tewdar wanted to add to the article under the Sociologists subheading. In an attempt to address this concern, I provided quotations from one of the most commonly used text books in the field of developmental biology, that states plainly and unambiguously that there are two sub-categories for sex determination; primary and secondary. That textbook contradicts the assertion that secondary sex characteristics are in the field of sex differentiation. That textbook plainly states that primary sex determination is made from gonadal observation, and chromosomal makeup. That textbook also states that secondary sex determination is made from hormone levels, external genitalia, and internal sex organs. The textbook is very clear that both criteria are used when determining sex.

Conversely the sociological definition for how sex is determined is of five equally weighted criteria. They are not subdivided into primary or secondary. If you compare the five criteria from the sociological definition, the first two map on to the requirements for primary sex determination, the other three map on to the requirements for secondary sex determination.

I have been clear throughout this that I am not using the terms interchangeably. That the source for the sociologist section is using the terms interchangeably is immaterial, because while that would be contextually wrong if that sociologist was writing in a biology context, it is not wrong in a sociological one. The complaint that sociologist have a different and wrong theory for how sex is determined, because they interchange the words determined and defined, is not a fair one because they are wholly separate fields approaching the same information from different perspectives. Context is very important when making these assertions.

Now to address the new points. The citation from Rab V is a verbatim reprint of an article that originally appeared in Nature. Because of this, it was subject to the editorial requirements required to appear in that journal. Nature is not a WP:NEWSORG even for the editorial section, and the consensus from the reliable sources noticeboard is that editorials in Nature are considered reliable high quality sources. The stricter criteria of WP:MEDASSESS do not apply in this case, because this is not a medical citation nor medical article, despite being within the realm of biology and others.

In summary. We have both strayed pretty far from the original discussion points; how is sex determined? How do biologists determine sex? How do sociologists determine sex? However in doing so, I have pointed out that biologists use multiple criteria when determining sex, which are sub divided into primary and secondary criterion. The argument that secondary sex characteristics, like hormone levels, and genitalia are in the realm of sex differentiation is not substantiated by cross referencing against the textbook that I have cited. According to that text, those are secondary characteristics used in sex determination.

I will ask one last time, before I make a complaint to the administrators. Please stop accusing me of misreading the sources I am citing. Please stop accusing me of getting confused between the terms sex determination and sex differentiation. This is a violation of WP:NPA and specificailly WP:AVOIDYOU. These are personal attacks and WP:UNCIVIL. Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Okay I will stop accusing of misreading. I put sources in the biologists section and have quoted with statements that say this.

One thing biologists do agree on is that males and females count as different sexes. And they also agree that the main difference between the two is gamete size: males make lots of small gametes—sperm in animals, pollen in plants—and females produce a few big eggs.

The answer is that there is an agreement by convention: individuals producing the smaller of the two gamete types-sperm or pollen- are males, and those producing larger gametes-eggs or ovules- are females.

Judging by statements like theses, the definition that’s currently in the section isn’t controversial. One source is from Oxford the other is from PLOS biology which are reliable.

Also, I have forgot to mention this but, the definition of biological sex that I have been saying is also present is some sociology sources, I have even seen it in medical sources too. I don’t know why I didn’t mention earlier guess I’m just forgetful.CycoMa (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Also here’s the thing I was trying say about that whole source from Nature. Humans being classified as gonochoric by Oxford, the definition I have presented, and the author tweeting about the subject contradicts what the source in general was claiming. I mean I provided a source from Oxford that defines male and female, isn’t it weird the source from Nature never mentions stuff like gonochorism or anisoamy. Like I have seen reliable sources from 2019 saying humans are a gonochoric species published by Campbridge or Oxford. It is possible many people are misreading what Claire Ainsworth is trying to argue. Also are you aware that Sex Redefined is literally marked in the news section.CycoMa (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you assuming, CycoMa, that there is only one RS answer to the question, "how is sex defined in humans"? Because that seems like an EXTRAORDINARY claim, and inferences by editors don't really factor in to evaluating such claims. Newimpartial (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: no of course not. But, if reliable sources differ in their definitions that’s either means they are using different language, they have a different interpretation on the matter, or they didn’t know that definition.CycoMa (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: also again with the whole definition of sex in humans.CycoMa (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not totally clear on what's going on with the "sex determination" FORUM dispute above, but to be absolutely clear, the developmental biology textbook cited in this comment is talking about the sex-determination system. It is about the developmental processes involved in sex in biology, not about humans "determining" which sex an organism is, like we "determine" which species.
  As for 'sex is a bimodal spectrum', if that were so, then it would not be entirely absent from the peer-reviewed biological and medical literature, being confined only to newsy popularizations, generally ones making a sociopolitical point. Sex in biology is a functional trait, and there are only two functions. Sex cannot be a spectrum, even a bimodal one, because there is no measureable quantity by which we can rank organisms as X number of points male or female. It is a category error. Sex characteristics can vary somewhat continuously, but this just goes to show why such conflation is bad. A male with a shorter penis - and thus closer in size to a clitoris - is not 'less male'. A female human with smaller breasts - and thus closer to a male chest size - is not 'less female'. And no, this is not negated by a single pop-sci article (not editorial) in the news section of Nature 6 years ago, whose author has explicitly made the same exact point about what sex is and what varies that I did.
  This discussion has long since stopped being about any particular edit and should be closed. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC) clarified Crossroads ^-talk- 05:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah I kinda forgot to about [|this source].CycoMa (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. We uncontroversially tell everyone how biological sex is defined by biologists, yes? Then, having given plenty of due weight to that, we tell everybody all about the "Sex-differences in humans and gender distinction", the first component of which is unfortunately shortened to 'sex' by most of the sources. We are not to blame for this, but we are to blame for WP:SYNTH importing a biological definition of sex which has very little to do with this topic. Tewdar (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more useful and relevant if someone expanded the biological "Sex differences" section, instead of waffling on this talk page. I made a start, plenty of room for improvement! Tewdar (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Great link (Bhargava et al. 2021) by the way @CycoMa: - finally, a biologist's definition of sex and gender in one article! Brilliant! Tewdar (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Ohh! I'll need time to read it, but from the the title and section headers alone, this sounds like it'll be a great paper to cite in this article. Great find @CycoMa:! Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I remember I already read that paper ages ago. Isn't that the same one someone suggested I summarise in a previous discussion? Tewdar (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I always thought that gender & sex (not intercourse), meant the same thing. GoodDay (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Noooo! You'll open Pandora's box again! We only just managed to get it closed! 😱 Tewdar (talk) 10:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

References