Talk:Sex/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Definition

The current Lead states: "By definition, male gametes are small, motile, and optimized to transport their genetic information over a distance, while female gametes are large, non-motile and contain the nutrients necessary for the early development of the young organism."

While it is true that eggs are much larger cells, and have significantly less motility than sperm even in species where the egg is slightly motile, the true formal definition has to do with how the germ line cell (the precursor cell that divides to form the gametes) distributes its cytoplasm. In a male, each precursor cell divides into 4 gametes with an equal share of the parent cell's cytoplasm. (While it's true that males of most species have "immature" sperm immediately after this division which must then be matured, any loss of cytoplasm from the that maturation process, which varies between males of different species, would presumably also be evenly distributed. By this I mean that all 4 gametes derived from the same parent cell would lose the same percentage of their cytoplasm.) In a female, a single haploid cell claims all the parent cell's cytoplasm, while the other 3 haploid cells are simply nuclei with an outer membrane wrapped tightly around them (no cytoplasm).

In effect, a cell with an equal share of its parent cell's cytoplasm will be small and motile, while a cell that dominated all its parent cell's cytoplasm at the expense of the "polar" cells will be large and less motile even in species where it is not entirely immotile. Although that is the end result, the formal definitions of male and female are in fact equal and winner-take-all distribution of the precursor cell's cytoplasm, respectively. The end result may be convenient for readers, but the mechanism leading to it is in reality the definition, so there has to be a way to clarify this in the Article without going over an average reader's head. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"with some falling in between being intersex" No this doesnt happen, the simple facts are if you have xy chromos you are Male, if you have atleast one y chromo you are male!

Now if you want ignore the fact xy* males are male, then the xy* are neither.--ArnoldHimmler (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about all organisms, not just humans. Most plants do not have X or Y chromosomes. Many insects have a complicated system where worker bees have only one set of chromosomes. So your view applies only to a single species (humans), and not to most others. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

ArnoldHimmler, should read the Intersex article and topics like XX male syndrome. Either way, I have noted WP:Not a forum on ArnoldHimmler's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Huh? Gudu8 (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Fringe theory?

I'm a bit concerned about these edits which substantially changed the article and introduced a theory which is seemingly the editor's own theory. From what I can tell, this isn't a widely accepted theory - the paper about it published in 2010 has only been cited 7 times. Should we remove the information about sex evolving to repair DNA per WP:FRINGE? (The theory is all over the place on Wikipedia and I've started a thread here in case anyone is interested.) Cheers SmartSE (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

SmartSE, seeing this discussion (now archived) that you linked to, I agree that a lot of that should be significantly cut down across Wikipedia. I apologize for the late reply. Flyer22 (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22 Thanks for taking a look - I was a bit surprised that nobody else joined in that discussion, but this has been at the back of my mind since then. I'll revert the edits here, but we should probably seek consensus somewhere else like WT:BIOLOGY before removing it from all the articles affected. SmartSE (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Insects and sexual intercourse

I've not seen invertebrates mating ever referred to as 'sexual intercourse'.

Bfpage |leave a message 23:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: For what Bfpage means, see this edit. The term sexual intercourse is most commonly restricted to humans, but it is, of course, applied to non-human animals as well, and it has synonyms such as coitus and copulation. And while few sources refer to insects as having sexual intercourse, a lot of sources refer to insects as copulating. Flyer22 (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Sex, facing ambiguity

Mention the word "sex" and what comes to mind? For many people it will be some sort of potentially sweaty activity which may well involve other bodily fluids as well. This view is I think certainly enforced by results of a books search on sex and I think that, if anything, this type of activity would count as WP:PRIMARY topic.

That's the first definition of sex, the second relates to the categorisation/distinction of living things according to reproductive function and, in this case, a synonym of "gender" is often applied and gender, it can be noted, also relates to classification between male and female.

Complications to this potentially overly simplistic view I think are found when we consider Transgender related issues as may relate to Transsexual people. The article Causes of transsexualism presents a view that, "Currently, there are numerous possible explanations of the cause of transsexualism, including genetics, brain structure, brain function, and prenatal androgen exposure. ..." and this clearly leaves the suggestion that there is a biological component in regard to Gender dysphoria (as it might be slightly less judgementally termed).

In these contexts I was wondering about the best way to disambiguate this article from, well, "sex" - and a few possibilities came to mind.

Anatomical sex,
Sex (categorisation),
Sex (categorisation based on role in reproduction) or similar
Biological sex (which, as mentioned above, may potentially be ambiguous and might be less ambiguously presented as)
Sex (biological categorisation)

No offence is meant by the use of the term ambiguity. I would also be happy with use of other terms and it is here recognised that this (by any chosen description) may be equally taken as a point of interest.

Meanwhile I am wondering what title might present the best NPOV description of this article.

Greg Kaye 13:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: I told GregKaye on my talk page the following: As for the Sex article, I prefer that it either remain titled Sex or be titled Biological sex; the other alternative is Anatomical sex. But the reason that it is not disambiguated is because the related articles are disambiguated, and there is a Sex (disambiguation) page for what else the term can mean; as that page shows, sex can be a vague term. But, per WP:Disambiguation, we ideally should only disambiguate when needed. For example, we state "sex and gender distinction," not "biological sex and gender distinction.

So, clearly, I do not see the problem he sees with this article being titled Sex. And I don't understand how he is defining neutral or WP:Neutral. We don't need a Sex (categorisation) article since all of the encyclopedic definitions of sex have their own Wikipedia articles. And those definitions should have their own Wikipedia articles. We could rename the Sex article to Biological sex, and then have the disambiguation page be at the Sex title, but I don't see that as needed. Flyer22 (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

No one is going to have trouble finding the sex topic they are looking for with the WP:Hatnote that is currently at the top of the article. Flyer22 (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a possible title but I would be interested if there's anything to prove whether or not various cases of Gender dysphoria have biological cause. As far as the hatnote is concerned, I do not think that sex (referencing image, video, news and web searches) is always limited to the "act of copulation" 13:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC) added to after edit conflict: Greg Kaye 14:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the title of this article? Your reasoning in that regard makes no sense to me. You seem to keep basing article title moves on POV that Wikipedia should not be going by. And by "seem to keep," I mean that this started with your "sexual disorder" objection proposals.

Also, instead of simply alerting this and this WikiProject, you should have also alerted the more relevant WikiProjects noted at the top of this talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is a WP:PILLAR of Wikipedia and the second most important issue regarding article titling as sequentially presented at WP:AT. Please do not shout. Greg Kaye 14:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I know that WP:NPOV is a WP:Pillar (it is listed on my user page, after all), but your interpretation of WP:NPOV is incorrect as far the "sexual disorder" article titles go, and this one. I am not shouting by bolding. I bold when I think I should or simply when I feel like it.

Regarding what you stated about "the act of copulation," your rationale still makes no sense. A WP:Hatnote is not supposed to list every definition of a matter; read WP:Hatnote. Or better yet, read Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Usage guidelines. A WP:Hatnote is supposed to aid readers to what they are most likely looking for other than the topic of the article. In this case, that's the sexual activity aspect of sex, as is clear by past posts to this talk and vandalism or other WP:Disruptive posts in this talk page's edit history. The WP:Hatnote includes the article readers are mostly likely looking for other than this one, and a link to the disambiguation page; that is the way the WP:Hatnote is supposed to work. Flyer22 (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22, there is no need for such a move...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Since GregKaye asked, edits like this, this, this, this, and various other edits like that in that edit history, is what I meant by "as is clear by past posts to this talk and vandalism or other WP:Disruptive posts." Flyer22 (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I asked privately basically in an attempt to stave off content that I did not consider to have relevance to the central proposal. Now we are on the subject, at what comparative rate does the Sexual intercourse talk page face similar vandalism? Some of the crude comments made present the very simple argument that the primary topic of "sex" is "sex".

The article solely regards "sex" in terms of biological specialisation despite there being other human parameters of the definition of sex that give consideration to the gender identity of the person. The article focusses on the mechanistic definition of sex even though the physical is only one part of a person's self and even though it is not primary topic. Greg Kaye 17:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The Sexual intercourse talk page doesn't receive comparable vandalism, partly because the term sexual intercourse is usually not vague. People are defining sex with the crude comments I linked to above. Why is that? Well, that is because, as is already noted, the term sex is vague. It can mean any number of things, but people usually take it to mean sexual activity. But stating that, per WP:Primary topic, the Sex article should be about sexual activity is not a good argument in this case (well, unless it's the argument that the Sex article should be about sexual reproduction and the state of being male, female, intersex or hermaphroditic, which is what the article is already about). It is not a good argument because of how vague the term sex is. It is not a good argument because with as much as sex refers to sexual activity, it refers biological sex just as much or nearly as much in WP:Reliable sources, which is clear by the Sex and gender distinction article, the Sex (disambiguation) page, and the various topics about biology/anatomy on Wikipedia. It is not a good argument because, to repeat, all of the encyclopedic topics about sex have their own Wikipedia articles. There is no need for a Sex article that is about sexual acts; Wikipedia already has that covered. If anyone is worried about editors not getting to the correct "sexual" destination when they wind up at this article because that editor believes that the WP:Hatnote is not a sufficient aid in that regard, I reiterate that "[w]e could rename the Sex article to Biological sex, and then have the disambiguation page be at the Sex title, but I don't see that as needed."

Your gender identity arguments are off the mark for me; I suggest you read the Gender, Gender identity, and Sex and gender distinction articles, and their sources. In my opinion, you should not be arguing the title change of this article based on transgender matters or other gender matters. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that this page title is accurate and should be left alone. If some users encounter this page when they are looking for another, then perhaps they'll even learn something about basic biology. Dictionaries disagree about which definition should be listed first; see this, this, and this for counter-examples. (As a minor point, I also disagree with the claim above that sex and gender are synonyms.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I stated more on my talk page about this, including the problem with suggesting that the Sexual intercourse article should be titled Sex or that the term sex should redirect to the Sexual intercourse article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing Even if the argument is made that the term is accurate (with which I sympathise) it still woefully fails the requirements of primary. In many other situations like this We commonly either place the disambiguation page at the ambiguously titled namespace or use the ambiguously titled namespace as a redirect to the disambiguation page..

As indicated above this is the kind of thing that may most frequently come to mind when someone hears the word "Sex". If someone wants to read about "sex" as per the commonly used physical activity definition it may be very likely that they will understandably use the search term "Sex". I think that the vandalism that the page receives is more akin in the most part to childish graphiti and, still, it makes a point.

In contrast the article, in current form, fallaciously presents a primary definition of "Sex" and then, in its eighth and tenth words, presents, makes connections to the terms "male" and "female". My POV concern here is that many Trans women consider themselves with the consistent use of a range of female terminologies in association with the concept womanhood.

My concern is that an article that is given an all encompassing title immediately makes a very strong statement in regard to Gender (a synonym of sex). See also synonyms of "female". These are all the things that Trans women, in similarity to many other women, aspire too. I really do not think that it helps, within a world of prejudice, to have a centrally placed yet ambiguous titled Wikipedia article presenting a one issue definition of "male" and "female". Greg Kaye 07:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Your concern about transgender issues is misplaced. And you are not helping transgender issues by having "Sex" moved to "Biological sex." Transgender people commonly distinguish between sex and gender, making it clear that anatomical sex/assigned sex is not the same thing as gender/gender identity. This is just one reason I suggested you read up on such matters. Clearly, you have not. Time and again, I think that you need to read WP:Advocacy. One thing I despise on Wikipedia is people editing from an advocacy point of view instead of from a point view that is meant to truly improve Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

And an example of what I mean regarding transgender people commonly distinguishing between sex and gender is this Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) discussion, especially the General discussion section there. Flyer22 (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Greg, I think you're missing a word in that bolded sentence. It should say that "women consider themselves" (something or another—that idiom needs an object).

Is your goal to minimize the gender binary in an article about biological sex? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing Within the whole concept of Gender I by no means want to minimise the concept of Gender binary. There are, however other concepts of Gender such as Gender identity that I think also deserve similarly prominent presentation. Greg Kaye 05:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Related page views in Wikipedia:

The following are page view stats for the article "sex" and to linked articles in the sequence in which they appear in the hatnote, initial picture lead of the sex article:

I was initially very surprised by the high rate of hits received by the "sex" article. It is my conjecture that this article (as it relates to the biological differentiation between females and males) gets a grossly disproportionate number of visits due to a titling that is most commonly taken to refer to "Sexual intercourse". I think that a high proportion of visitors to this page will be looking for "sex" according to the term's definition as an activity and, though without approval, I am not surprised by a response of protest that includes vandalism. Greg Kaye 10:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

In comparison

Page view stats for the article "sexual intercourse" and to linked articles in the sequence in which they appear in that article's hatnote, initial picture and opening paragraph:

From this it seems to me that the topics related to the physical aspects of sexual activity receive considerably more traffic than articles related to the physical differences between females and males. Greg Kaye 11:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Support move "Sex" is one of the most popular articles on Wikipedia and the interest is more because of interested in "sexual intercourse" than "biological sex". For that reason, this article on "sex" should be about the action, not about the biological characteristic.

Sex -> Biological sex

Sexual intercourse -> Sex

This move would be aligned with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which recommends that the most popular Wikipedia topic should get an ambiguous article title, whereas less popular concepts get disambiguated to a more specific name. I find the traffic reports above to be convincing evidence that more readers are coming to this article to learn about the sex act than anything else. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, your assertion that "the interest is more because of interested in "sexual intercourse" than "biological sex" deserves a {{dubious}} tag. How exactly do you know that this assertion is accurate? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The Internet is for Porn. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not recommend "that the most popular Wikipedia topic should get an ambiguous article title, whereas less popular concepts get disambiguated to a more specific name." Furthermore, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a guideline whereas WP:Precise is policy. Like I noted above, I would support moving Sex to Biological sex, and having Sex be a disambiguation page. But I would not support moving Sexual intercourse to Sex. The reason why is what I stated on my talk page. I stated: I've been clear that "sex" is vague, while "sexual intercourse" is not vague (usually anyway). If "sex" were not vague, we would not have the Sex article, Sexual intercourse article, Human sexual activity article (also known as the Sexual activity article) and the Human sexuality article (also known as the Sexuality article). And if you are wondering about the non-human animals, there is the Animal sexual behaviour article. Among all of the meanings of "sex," "sex" is also shorthand for "sexual intercourse." But because of all the different meanings of sex, the WP:Precise policy comes into play here. For reasons that should be clear to anyone who reads the Sexual intercourse article and its sources, including its sources regarding how people define sexual intercourse vs. other sex acts, the Sexual intercourse article should not be titled Sex. Many people do not consider oral sex to be "real sex," for example. And there's the topic of outercourse as a whole. But when a person states "sexual intercourse," the "real sex" viewpoint is usually prevalent. The Sexual intercourse article should be titled Sexual intercourse, per that title being precise and conforming to its sources. What valid point is there for such an article move, when all of the sexual activity aspects have their own Wikipedia articles and when the titles of those articles have been serving readers well? It's like you are arguing to have us merge all of these sexual topics into one article titled Sex. If we move the Sexual intercourse article to Sex, how do we reconcile the Human sexual activity, Human sexuality and Outercourse articles? Are we to merge all those articles into one big article titled Sex? Are we to ignore the fact that the sources in the Sexual intercourse article are mostly specifically talking about sexual intercourse and are clear that not all sex acts are considered sexual intercourse? Read the Sexual intercourse article, and especially what is stated about how it is defined, including by scholars. I have studied sexual topics, and sexology specifically, for years, and I can tell you with certainty that WP:Precise should apply in this case considering what the sources are stating.

I also stated on my talk page: And as for redirecting... When editors editing an anatomical matter link to the term sex (whether it's linking to sex in the Male article or to sex at the Secondary sex characteristic article, or something similar), it should not take them to the Sexual intercourse article; it should take them to the default meaning of sex (which, as generally seen by dictionary sources, is the state of being male or female) or it should take them to a disambiguation page so that readers/editors can find the sex definition they are looking for. Flyer22 (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Another alternative would be to have "sex" redirect to the Human sexual activity article (with the Biological sex page existing and the Sex (disambiguation) page continuing to exist), just like "sexual activity" redirects there, and "sexuality" redirects to the Human sexuality article (while Sexuality (disambiguation) exists). Having "sex" redirect to the Human sexual activity article would make more sense than having it redirected to Sexual intercourse article, given the broadness of the terms sex and sexual activity compared to the ways that the term sexual intercourse is commonly limited. And the reason that humans are given the default space for "sexual activity" and "sexuality" is because people are usually looking for human sexual matters when searching those topics, and the Animal sexual behaviour article exists for non-human animals. But I would prefer that "sex" be a disambiguation page instead of redirecting to any article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Having "sex" go to a disambiguation page would be most precise.

If sex leads somewhere directly, "human sexual activity" would be the best target because that is what readers usually want. I do not like that article because it does not list common sex acts. I would expect it to do this in some kind of hierarchy. Human_sexual_activity#Types is not currently very useful and gives the majority of its weight to acts practiced by fewer than 1% of people.

After looking again, I disagree with you that "sexual intercourse" is a clear term. I regret proposing that this be the target for "sex" because the content of that article does not include what I would expect to see. Even in the Wikipedia article there is discussion about whether oral or anal sex are intercourse, and in the field of HIV prevention, that conversation has been ongoing for decades.

I am not in agreement that the dictionary definition used by the Western educated class is the best place for this article, which is where it is now. The most important concept is human sexual activity, then "sex" commonly is used to mean gender presentation, and much less commonly is the genetic explanation in the current sex article used.

I think I favor a disambiguation page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Bluerasberry (last time WP:Pinging you to this discussion because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies), the Human sexual activity article obviously needs works, and that includes the Types sections you mentioned. For a detailed article on sexual acts, however, we have the Sex position article, which I once proposed be titled Sex acts and positions or Sex acts and sex positions. As for the Sexual intercourse article, I meant that the term sexual intercourse, going by the WP:Reliable sources, is the WP:Precise term for that article; it is far more precise for that article than the ambiguous term sex. The Sexual intercourse article is clear that anal sex and oral sex are considered sexual intercourse (in fact, it's clear in its Definitions section that vaginal, anal and oral sex are the sex acts most commonly considered sexual intercourse), but that many people don't consider anal sex and/or oral sex as such. That should be in that article, for the very reasons made clear in that article's Definitions section, in its Prevalence section and in its Ethical, religious, and legal views section; it is not only laypeople who commonly define sexual intercourse to only mean penile-vaginal sex or to only mean sexual penetration of the vagina, anus and/or mouth. It's researchers as well. It's gay and lesbian people as well, where, for example, it's common for a gay man to not consider oral sex to be "real sex"/sexual intercourse, but rather consider anal sex to be such. Other gay men, as noted in the Anal sex and Frot articles, dislike anal sex and it's oral sex, mutual masturbation and/or frotting that is "real sex"/sexual intercourse to them. In fact, it's a big misconception that gay men generally prefer anal sex. The sources I've included on these matters are clear, and that includes sources I've provided in the Definitions and practices section of the Non-penetrative sex (Outercourse) article. I understand that you define sexual intercourse broadly, but many people (including researchers) do not. And all I've done in that regard was go by the WP:Due weight policy (just like, in the Anal sex article, I went by the WP:Due weight policy by having anal sex defined first and foremost as anal penetration by a penis).

By "the dictionary definition used by the Western educated class," do you mean the Sex article or the Sexual intercourse article? Or both? Either way, it's not just western society (or even predominantly western society) that goes by these definitions. I'm confused by your "'sex' commonly is used to mean gender presentation" wording, since sex also commonly means sexual activity (far more than it means gender). But I am obviously fine with "Sex" being a disambiguation page or redirecting to the Human sexual activity article; others commenting below us are not. Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, the Types section of the Human sexual activity article, as it currently is, does list common sexual acts, but I understand that you feel it should state more on that instead of being so focused on the less common ones. Furthermore, human sexual activity goes beyond sex acts, which is why that article is so broad. Flyer22 (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose move. None of the suggested alternatives allows for the inclusion of "sex" as a general phenomenon of life, as found in many non-animal organisms from Ciliates and Fungi to Algae and flowering plants. Terms like "biological sex" and "anatomical sex" refer specifically to individuals, and not to the life cycle process that involves meiotic reduction of chromosome number and restoration of diploidy through syngamy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Sex must remain as the apex article. Sex is a key biological phenomenon, a fundamentally important reproductive strategy employed by a majority of eukaryotic organisms, including plants. This is an encyclopedia and it is important that the biological facts of what sex is are presented at the apex of the hierarchy of sex-related articles. Not as a disambiguation page, but as a fully-developed, overarching article that presents the principles in a non human-orientated way and that links directly, or indirectly via subsidiary articles, down to subsidiary issues such as human sexuality. In an encyclopedia we should be conscious of the taxonomy of concepts and articles, and not be responding to POV issues like "what most people are looking for". Consequently we should not have any discussion of the mechanics of, or variations in human sexual inter- or outer-course in the sex article, though of course these topics have their place elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Plantsurfer 10:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose move. I strongly agree with what ~~PlantDrew~~ Plantsurfer has eloquently written above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Corrected --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. As per EncycloPetey and Plantsurfer. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Ping EncycloPetey, Plantsurfer, LT910001, PaleCloudedWhite

Comment The argument here is to place a navigation page for the ambiguous tern "sex". In these kind of situations this is done as standard. No one is saying that sex, as a defining characteristic between genetic females (as per an xx chromosome arrangement) and genetic males (as per an xy chromosome arrangement) shouldn't be a pivotal article. However, when you talk about an "apex article" I fear that there is risk of overshadowing other issues of gender representation and this I think, by its very nature, is prejudice. A person's self can also be regarded as an apex issue and of, if anything, central importance to the well being, medically and otherwise, of a person. Sure chromosome arrangement has huge significance in regard to conceptions of gender but there is more to the picture than just this.

The primary topic of sex is sexual intercourse but, even with this being the case, it would be perfectly fine to use the "sex" namespace either directly as or as a redirect to a navigation page for related articles.

When a highly researched and developed subject such as the sexual intercourse receives such a high rate of enquiry through this term I personally think that it is unencyclopedic to place the current subject at this namespace. No one here is remotely suggesting that the current presented subject is in any way WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the namespace "sex" and I think think that any such a suggestion would not hold up.

Please, what WP p and g prerogative is there for keeping the page where it is?

The alternative is to continue with a situation in which readers come to this article looking for the activity of sex. In the context that these enquirers are greeted with a mass of text and a small note that might be interpreted to say, "I think you were looking for copulation" I do not think that there can be any wonder that this page gets vandalised. Also, in a context that the use of this terminology, with definitions that are regularly geared towards heterosexual activity, may be considered to prejudice against Gay sex/Gay sexual practices and Lesbian sex/Lesbian sexual practices which, arguably, are even less well categorised in terms of "copulation". Also please see related: Ngram and Google Trend results.

Also, in the context that not all sexual activity is between biological females and biological males, how is this an apex article?

Greg Kaye 07:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Very eloquent, but unfortunately your arguments are all about semantics and not about facts. Sexual activity would not occur if it were not for sex. Sexual preference would not exist were it not for sex. Gender stereotyping, secondary sexual characteristics, etc. etc. would not exist if sex had not evolved. Consequently these topics and the others which you mentioned above are subsidiary topics of sex. Ergo, Sex is the apex article, from which all the other topics are derived. Anything else is just spin. Plantsurfer 10:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree. What about a separate section 'sexual behaviour' (in humans, animals) that covers behavioural aspects relating to the act, would such a section be a good compromise GregKaye? --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

plantsurfer I would say that my arguments were more concerned with perspective rather than semantics. Each individual has a perspective the at least initially starts from the inside and which then extends to the outside. This is how people work. Within this framework it is the person's experience that is central. External views may want to impose on this but from the individual point of view you can start from this centre and proceed from there. As has been repeatedly demonstrated from this, and any, perspective, the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of "sex" is the activity. From the person's experience gender is embedded in their personal world view. Again I ask, "Please, what WP p and g prerogative is there for keeping the page where it is?"

LT910001 The issue that I have tried to address is that the article, the name of which is synonymous with gender, presents a purely xy chromosome based interpretation on the differentiation involved. There's more to people than just this.

I am in no way saying that the xy based differentiation of people is not important. I just don't think it deserves the main name space. Greg Kaye 12:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be worthwhile to reflect on the content of the article perspective to which you refer. A synonym is point of view. It ends "To choose a perspective is to choose a value system and, unavoidably, an associated belief system." The issues that have been raised are not about sex per se, but about human-oriented practices, beliefs and cultural values. Sex chromosome-based arguments are irrelevant. Not all organisms have them. Once again, all these things are valid issues in their own right, but they are subtopics of the apex topic. Their place is in their own articles, but the apex topic should remain unchanged. Plantsurfer 12:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Plantsurfer: To be fair and not to narrow things down I think it would be better to reflect on the content of Sex (disambiguation) while making an effort to put the presented terms into everyday language.

"A synonym is a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language. ..."

I agree that "To choose a perspective is to choose a value system and, unavoidably, an associated belief system" but interpret that to start imposing a single form of top down perspective starts to get into the realms of playing God. I am not arguing that this perspective cannot be presented. I am just saying that it should not happen at an extremely ambiguous namespace.

Again, "Please, what WP p and g prerogative is there for keeping the page where it is?" I looked up WP:Apex and found nothing. There are policies at WP:NPOV and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that directly relate.

My argument is that there are at least three major understandings of "sex":

"Sex" according an individuals understanding of their own gender identity.
"Sex" according to the activity that is widely and very variously pursued by a wide variety of animals not least humans.
"Sex" according to genetic differentiation within a species.

They are all notable. Greg Kaye 14:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your list is not a complete one. Some organisms have separate sexes that are NOT determined genetically, but environmentally. In other sepcies, there are no separate sexes as distinct individuals, but rather the differentiation happens in tissues within a single individual. There are also organisms with sex where sex does not refer to an activity and there is no differentiation at all of any kind. The problem is that no list of individual separate topics will be either short or comprehensive. This is why we need a general article dealing with the subject, where any of these issues can be treated without having to sub-classify them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

EncycloPetey Please explain how the current presentation of the article at Sex qualifies as a "general article". The article begins with the presentation of the definition of "sex" which is both out of step with common usage and alternate interpretations of differentiations of gender identity. Greg Kaye 09:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The answer to your question is simple: The introduciton to this article does not adequately summarize the contents of the article and needs to be improved. There is a template for that because it is a common problem on Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead image

What do you think about putting something less human-centric as the lead image? File:Types of sex determination.png might work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The gametes are not human centric. The same image could be from insects. The suggested image does not indicate a process critical to the subject of sex, as does the current image. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The proposed image introduces the misconception that "sex" is about the genetic identity of individuals. It is not. Sex is a life cycle process, and genetic determination of individuals to fill a role in that process is of secondary consideration. Many, many organisms have no such known genetic distinction between individuals. What all sexual organisms have in common is the production of gametes (sex cells) that fuse to produce a diploid organism. The fact that the lead image show human egg and sperm cells does not matter. Plants also produce egg and sperm cells. The proposed replacement has the disadvantage of focusing attention on genetically determined secondary sexual characteristics in animals, and that is a step in the wrong direction, both for switching from a generally applicable iomage to one focused on animals, and also for emphasizing a less important aspect of the general topic of "sex". --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2015

This edit request to Sex has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

14.141.181.66 (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Sexual reproduction

In the "Sexual reproduction" section of this article it is considered that the defining trait of sexual reproduction is the existence of two different individuals, mother and father, that produce female and male gametes that combine to originate the new being.

If we go to Sexual reproduction page, we find that the defining trait for sexual reproduction is the fact that two different types of gametes combine, irrespective of the fact that the may come from different or the same individual parent. This is important, because many plants have auto fecundation. I think that this second definition is correct, and therefore the definition in this article should be modified. I am not 100% sure, though.--Auró (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

That section says nothing about "different individuals", but does mention that both gametes can come from a single individual. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I copy-paste the first two sentences of this section:

"Sexual reproduction in eukaryotes is a process whereby organisms form offspring that combine genetic traits from both parents. Chromosomes are passed on from one generation to the next in this process. Each cell in the offspring has half the chromosomes of the mother and half of the father."

As this sentences are located at the beginning of the section, may be considered as a kind of definition.--Auró (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The terms "parent", "mother", and "father" here do not necessarily refer to separate individuals, as pointed out later in the text. This is an introductory explanation, designed to open understanding without being too technical or too precise, and thereby losing the reader. The "mother" is whatever individual provided the ovum/egg cell/megagamete, and the "father" is whatever individual provided the sperm/spermatid/microgamete. There are situations where these two come from the same individual, who then is both the "mother" and "father".

Your claim that "that two different types of gametes combine" is incorrect as well, since there are organisms in which the gametes are (for all practical purposes) identical, an which game the organism is termed isogamous. There are, in fact, so many variations, and so many exceptions to any precise definition, that trying to write one would be very long, complicated, and highly technical. It is better to introduce the topic with a clear and understandable explanation, and then proceed to expand upon it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I am only remarking the fact that the main article on sexual reproduction makes a different definition than this one, and proposing clarification and unification, so that the readers are not confused.--Auró (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

As you know the Spanish language, I will tell you a proverb "cuatro ojos ven más que dos" (four eyes see more than two). Maybe we could team to improve the article. I think that all the pertinent information is contained in it, but may be some effort is needed to improve the exposition, so that it becomes more didactic.--Auró (talk) 08:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for a new section

This article is about "sex". If we go to the body of the article, the first section deals with the evolution of sexual reproduction, and the second with reproduction. These are subjects very central to the concept of sex, but I think that an introductory section, in which the subject of sex is introduced, including its relation to reproduction would be very useful. I am including a draft of such a section below. See that I have tried to use a language that is as plain as possible. It is intended to be an introductory text, presented in a didactic fashion. There are no references, but once the contend is agreed, references would be added.

Introduction

One of the basic properties of life is reproduction, the capacity to generate new individuals, and sex is related to this process. Life has evolved from simple stages to more complex ones, and so have the reproduction mechanisms. Initially the reproduction was a replicating process that consists in producing new individuals that contain the same genetic information as the original or parent individual. This mode of reproduction is called asexual, and it is still used by many species, particularly unicellular, but it is also very common in pluricellular vegetals. In sexual reproduction the genetic material of the new being comes from two different individuals. As sexual reproduction developed by way of a long evolutive process, intermediates exist. Bacteria, for instance, reproduce asexually, but undergo a process by which a part of the genetic material of an individual (donor) is transferred to an other (recipient).

Disregarding intermediates, we can say that the basic distinction between asexual and sexual reproduction is the way in which the genetic material is processed. Typically, prior to an asexual division, a cell duplicates its genetic information content, and then splits. This process is called mitosis. In sexual reproduction there are a special kind of cells that divide without prior duplication of its genetic material, in a process named meiosis. The resulting cells are called gametes, and contain only half the genetic material of the parent cells. These gametes are the cells that are prepared for the sexual reproduction of the organism. Sex comprises the arrangements that enable the sexual reproduction, and has evolved alongside the reproduction system, starting with similar gametes (isogamy) and progressing to systems that have different gamete types, more notably a big ovum (feminine gamete) and a small masculine gamete (sperm).

In complex organisms, the sex organs are the parts that are involved in sexual reproduction. Many species, particularly animals, have sexual specialization, and their populations are divided into male and female individuals. Conversely, there are also species in which there is no sexual specialization, and the same individuals contain masculine and feminine reproductive organs, and they are called hermaphrodites. This is very frequent in vegetals.

--Auró (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Other than what I stated in this edit, I don't mind the section much. But I reiterate that Wikipedia articles usually should not have an Introduction/Overview section; per WP:Lead, the lead is for that. And some of the content you added is redundant to the Evolution section, while other parts of it can be placed elsewhere in the article if not already covered there. Flyer22 (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey Flyer22, I appreciate your comments. I think your modification in the title of the section is pertinent. The main objective of my edit has been to put something linking the concepts of sex and reproduction, and the common evolution of both, before going directly to this second concept. Maybe this could be done in the lead section, but for the present article I think this overview is not redundant. As for the content of the rest of the article, it maybe that can be trimmed, specially considering that there are other articles that cover these subjects in more depth.--Auró (talk) 11:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't stating that all of, or a lot of, the material you added should be in the lead; the lead is for summarizing what is already in the article, after all. I was simply stating that it's usually the lead that is the introduction/overview. I also meant that, because of this, other sections in the article should usually have a different title than "Introduction" or "Overview." If you are interested in a discussion specifically about that, see this one (that's a WP:Permalink). I still feel that the content you added is somewhat redundant to the Evolution section. But we'll see how the article develops with this and the other content. Flyer22 (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This line should be removed

Under "Sex Determination", then under "Genetic": "In humans, biological sex is determined by five factors present at birth: the presence or absence of a Y chromosome, the type of gonads, the sex hormones, the internal reproductive anatomy (such as the uterus in females), and the external genitalia."

With a single source: Knox, David; Schacht, Caroline. Choices in Relationships: An Introduction to Marriage and the Family. 11 ed. Cengage Learning; 2011-10-10 [cited 17 June 2013]. ISBN 9781111833220. p. 64–66.

This is a completely unknown book. It's not credible at all, it's not written by anyone noteworthy in the field either. It wants to change how biological sex is determined in humans all by itself, it's ridiculous. Sex, biological sex in humans has always been determined solely through the presence of X and Y chromosomes. That is how we have defined sex. this one source, this obscure book does NOT have the credibility to challenge such a basic fact.

either more sources, credible sources, should be added or this line should be removed.

Sirmidor (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Sirmidor, how is the book not credible at all? It passes the WP:Reliable sources guideline and the WP:MEDRS guideline. As for the rest, I'm not interested in debating you on that, but I will WP:Ping editor WhatamIdoing since she is the one who added that material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Since the effect of the Y chromosome wasn't understood until the 20th century, but farmers around the world have known how to get calves, lambs, and chicks born for millenia, you are probably overstating what you really believe. Humans developed the concept of a biological sex well before they developed any idea about genotyping.

"This obscure book" is a typical textbook. This one happens to both be free for most readers and also lays out in a very organized and concise fashion what the others say over the space of chapters or even whole books.

To understand the difference between the single-factor genetic sex and the multi-factorial biological sex, you might want to spend some time reading about intersex conditions, such as androgen insensitivity syndrome. AIS makes a genetic male be mostly biologically female. Note, too, that this definition is also significant for what it omits, especially "subjective self-perception" or any type of "neurological condition". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2016

This edit request to [[:--Shankarmallick123 (talk) 05:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)Sexhttp://top10bestvedio.blogspot.com/]] has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Shankarmallick123 (talk) 05:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Blank request — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hatnote

The hatnote currently reads:

The definition provided attempts to differentiate anatomical sex from sexual intercourse by defining anatomical sex as "sex in sexually reproducing organisms," a definition which clearly fails to differentiate between the two. I would suggest:

196.52.2.12 (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I've changed it to your suggestion, but there has been an argument against simply defining this article as an "anatomical sex" matter; this is why the article is not located at Anatomical sex, although "anatomical sex" redirects here. Someone might revert the change I made. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Except that this article isn't about "anatomical" sex; it's the general article about the process that occurs in the life cycle of many different kinds of living things. It's not about anatomy, and there isn't really a simpler way to say it, because the topic of this article is the broadest definition of the term. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I was expecting you to revert me, which is why I stated what I did above and noted that an editor could feel free to revert me. Obviously, per above and past discussion, some would disagree you that the article is not about anatomical sex. You've objected to the article being titled "Biological sex," which also redirects here, as well. Why? I would go back and read what you stated, but I'm lazy at the moment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

We have had one person vocal over this issue. Most editors have disagreed with his position. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I thought that discussion had been archived, but I see that it's currently at #Sex, facing ambiguity above. I argued with that editor, but, minutes ago, I still found myself wondering why you had objected to "Biological sex" as the title. Oh well. I can simply read the previous discussion (not right now, though, LOL). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)