Talk:Clitoris/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Clarification on development and differentiation from penis

The article currently states that it is the action of the protein TDF, from a gene on the Y chromosome, which determines whether the genital tubercule becomes a penis (should really be glans, or head, of the penis; the shaft comes from elsewhere) or a clitoris. TDF determines whether the bipotential gonads become testes or ovaries. It's the testosterone and dihydrotestosterone from the testes that determines whether the tubercule becomes a glans penis or a clitoris. Talarohk (talk) 07:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

See what the Genital tubercle currently states. The Clitoris article is simply following what the sources in the article relay. With regard to the genital tubercule, sources often word the matter as "either a clitoris or a penis." I understand what you are stating about the genital tubercule, but the literature has not always been consistent in that description. Like I've noted before, "some sources simply state that the genital tubercle forms the glans clitoris and glans penis, while other sources state the genital tubercle elongates and forms the shaft and glans of the penis, and that the genital tubercle forms the glans and shaft of the clitoris. In other words, sources do not only state that the genital tubercle only forms the glans of both organs. Nor do they usually state that genital tubercle only forms the glans of both organs." Below, see the sources I pointed to in that previous discussion. I haven't yet looked at newer sources for descriptions on the matter.

Click on this to see sources for differences in explaining the genital tubercle and urogenital folds matter.

For example, this 2003 Diagnostic Imaging of Fetal Anomalies source, from Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, page 606, states, "In males, the urogenital folds fuse and the genital tubercle elongates to form the shaft and glans of the penis." This 2008 Peripheral Arterial Disease source, from McGraw Hill Professional, page 854, states, "The genital tubercle elongates to form the penis. The coronary sulcus on the genital tubercle demarcates the primordial glans penis from the phallic shaft." This 2011 Lecture Notes: Biomedical Science source from John Wiley & Sons, page 245, states, "The genital tubercle elongates and forms the shaft and glans of the penis. The urogenital sinus becomes continuous with a groove that develops on the caudal face of the genital tubercle and this groove closes to become the penile part of the urethra while the fused urogenital folds enclosing the sinus becomes the prostate part of the urethra. [...] The genital tubercle forms the glans and shaft of the clitoris." This 2013 Endocrinology: An Integrated Approach source, from CRC Press, page 224, states, "The genital tubercle elongates and forms the shaft and glans of the penis. [...] In the female, the labia minora form from the urethral folds and the genital tubercle elongates to form the clitoris." This 2013 The 7 Sexes: Biology of Sex Determination source, from Indiana University Press, page 116, states, "DHT, in turn, acts on nuclear receptors in those cells and the genital tubercle forms the head of the penis, or the glans penis, as it is called in medical texts." This 2014 Oxford Handbook of Endocrinology and Diabetes source, from Oxford University Press, page 544, states, "The genital tubercle elongates to form the corpora cavernosa and glans penis; the urethral fold forms the penile shaft, and the labioscrotal swelling forms the scrotum." And this 2009 Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility source, from BI Publications Pvt Ltd, shows where both [Jytdog] and [I] were coming from; it has the following layout: Labioscrotal swellings -- Scrotum/Labia majora Urogenital folds -- Ventral aspect of the penis/labia minora Genital tubercle -- Penis/Clitoris Urogenital sinus -- Urinary parts

Regarding the testis-determining factor (TDF), which is also known as the sex-determining region Y (SRY) protein, while the lead states that "the tubercle develops into either a penis or a clitoris, depending on the presence or absence of the protein tdf, which is codified by a single gene on the Y chromosome.", the lower part of the article (the Development section) states, "The Y chromosome contains a sex-determining gene (SRY) that encodes a transcription factor for the protein tdf (testis determining factor) and triggers the creation of testosterone and Anti-Müllerian hormone for the embryo's development into a male. [...] The clitoris develops from a phallic outgrowth in the embryo called the genital tubercle. Initially undifferentiated, the tubercle develops into either a clitoris or penis during development of the reproductive system depending on exposure to androgens (primarily male hormones)." This Nature source used in the Development section states, "Once the SRY gene product stimulates the indifferent gonad to develop into a testis, the testis begins producing two hormones, testosterone and anti-Müllerian hormone, or AMH. Testosterone and one of its derivatives, dihydrotestosterone, induce formation of other organs in the male reproductive system, while AMH causes the degeneration of the Müllerian duct. In females, who do not contain the SRY protein, the ovary-forming pathway is activated by a different set of proteins. The fully developed ovary then produces estrogen, which triggers development of the uterus, oviducts, and cervix from the Müllerian duct."

The lead focused on TDF because of its role regarding the hormones. I'll go ahead and change the lead text from "depending on the presence or absence of the protein tdf, which is codified by a single gene on the Y chromosome" to "during development of the reproductive system depending on exposure to androgens (which are primarily male hormones)." If you want us to mention testosterone and dihydrotestosterone in the lead we can, but we can also mention dihydrotestosterone in the Development section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2019

I am Odile Fillod, and I have just discovered the following part of the text: "In 2016, Odile Fillod created a 3D printable, open source, full-size model of the clitoris, for use in a set of sex education videos she had been commissioned to produce. This model, first designed with Sculpteo,[155] was subsequently exhibited at the Cité des Sciences et de l'Industrie, the largest science museum in Europe.[156]". It is incorrect:

- Sculpteo has absolutely nothing to do with that project (and they used my model for commercial purposes, without my authorisation, and without citing its source, although it was released under a Creative Commons SA-BY-NC licence, so I am particularly upset that they're being cited here),

- the model was never "exhibited" at the Cité des Sciences: the FabLab of this museum helped me designing it, that's all,

- the videos were not for "sex education"; it was designed as anti-sexist material for teaching sex/gender/sexuality related topics. All this information (as well as the model) can be found on the following page (hosted by the Cité des sciences) : http://carrefour-numerique.cite-sciences.fr/fablab/wiki/doku.php?id=projets:clitoris.

Therefore, I suggest to

REPLACE "In 2016, Odile Fillod created a 3D printable, open source, full-size model of the clitoris, for use in a set of sex education videos she had been commissioned to produce. This model, first designed with Sculpteo,[155] was subsequently exhibited at the Cité des Sciences et de l'Industrie, the largest science museum in Europe.[156]"

WITH "In 2016, Odile Fillod created a 3D printable, open source, full-size model of the clitoris, for use in a set of anti-sexist videos she had been commissioned to produce [REF].", with REF = http://carrefour-numerique.cite-sciences.fr/fablab/wiki/doku.php?id=projets:clitoris Odile Fillod (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Odile Fillod. I'm sorry that the material in question has upset you. I'm trusting what you've stated above. I went ahead and changed the first sentence so that the "sex education" text now says "anti-sexist." I also removed mention of Sculpteo since the source is a WP:Primary source and you have contested the material. Do you also have an issue with the "was subsequently exhibited at the Cité des Sciences et de l'Industrie, the largest science museum in Europe" text? If so, why? I didn't use the source you suggested because I don't think it passes our WP:Reliable sources guideline. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

That stated, the source might be okay to use per WP:About self. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Hi, Flyer22 Reborn. Thank you very much for your responsiveness.

The model was exhibited in other museums, like the Museum der Dinge in Berlin (see https://www.thingiverse.com/make:627739) and the New York Hall of Science (https://www.thingiverse.com/make:627729), but it was definitely never exhibited at the Cité des Sciences et de l'Industrie (I wish it was :)). The second sentence should be suppressed, then. In any case, the fact that it has been exhibited in a museum does not seem to me to be very relevant information in the context of this wikipedia notice. The creation of this 3D model had a great impact, but in other ways (notably, in France, on the content of school textbooks, 5 of which now containing a complete drawing of the clitoris, which had never happened before).

As regards the source I have suggested (http://carrefour-numerique.cite-sciences.fr/fablab/wiki/doku.php?id=projets:clitoris), it's really the best one Wikipedia can quote in my opinion, because it's the very place where I have put the model online with free access, and where I have given the main information about this project (its context, its timing, who contributed to it, etc.). And it is hosted by an institution, the Cité des Sciences et de l'Industrie (see "cite-sciences.fr" in the url).

Odile Fillod (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I removed mention of Cité des Sciences et de l'Industrie, but keep in mind that the source (which says it spoke to you) states "exhibited at the Fab Lab in the Cité des Sciences et de l'Industrie in Paris—the biggest science museum in Europe." I understand the media getting things wrong, but we (Wikipedia) really can only go by what WP:Reliable sources state. We usually don't remove content that passes our reliable sources guideline because an author or creator comes to Wikipedia and says the material is wrong (especially if the account the editor is using hasn't been verified by WP:OTRS). I might add a WP:Hidden note to the paragraph referencing this discussion. I also will likely eventually add the source you suggested for use since, if I do use it, it will be added for that first sentence only and WP:Reliable sources already exist in the article covering your work.

On a side note: Please don't mark the semi-protected edit request as unanswered again. I marked it as answered because I have responded and I am interacting with you now. And regarding this, WP:Pings only work with a fresh signature. But since this article/talk page is on my WP:Watchlist, editors don't need to ping me to it.

Thank you for bringing the aforementioned issues to my attention. Even though we do follow what sources that pass our reliable sources guideline state, I don't see an issue with omitting the material I admitted for accuracy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Hi!

Thank you for editing the article, and sorry for marking the answer as unanswered and for pinging you. I am not familiar with this process - I thought it was necessary. So, I am just editing this "talk page" and I hope you will see what's below.

Yes, I keep in mind that Paul Douard, who did speek to me (in fact, he sent me a few questions by email and I answered to it), included several inaccuracies in his paper, but it is his responsibility and I won't make him change his paper. Unfortunately, that's pretty common with journalists, you know...

I understand that Wikipedia can only go by what so called "reliable sources" state. So I thank you for taking our discussion into account anyway.

Now I see that another paragrah about me is not correct: "Fillod was interviewed by Stephanie Theobald, whose article in The Guardian stated that the 3D model would be used in French primary and secondary schools;[155] this was never the case, but the story went viral across the world, demonstrating, according to Fillod, the public's hunger for information about the clitoris.[156]"

If you have a look at [155] (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/aug/15/french-schools-3d-model-clitoris-sex-education), you can see that it reads (emphasis added): "it will be used for sex education in French schools, from primary to secondary level, from september". That is what was wrong, as I explained and is written in [156] (http://www.makery.info/en/2016/08/30/clitoris-3d-la-chercheuse-odile-fillod-fait-le-point-sur-le-buzz-de-lete/) because it made people believe that the French Ministry of education had decided to require the use of the model, and that it would be used in all sex education classes, whatever their level.

Moreover, Wikipedia currently states that it was never used in French schools (and there is no source for such a statement), which is not correct since it was used, and it is still used, at least in secondary schools, by some biology teachers and sex educators.

Finally, if you read [156], you can see that what this Guardian story demonstrated, according to me, is not what is currently stated in Wikipedia. When I say "This shows there is a strong demand for information and educational tools on this subject", I am answering another question and making another comment ("the 3D clitoris had an unhoped for visibility in France and abroad, and apart from an obscure extreme right-wing website, it was received with a lot of enthusiasm. This shows there is a strong demand for information and educational tools on this subject").

Therefore, I suggest to REPLACE the paragraph above WITH the following: "Fillod was interviewed by Stephanie Theobald, whose article in The Guardian stated that the 3D model would be used for sex education in French schools, from primary to secondary level, from September 2016 onwards;[155] this was not the case, but the story went viral across the world.[156]" Odile Fillod (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Changed (followup edit here). Regarding pinging, I was simply saying that there is no need for an editor to ping me to this talk page since it's on my watchlist; it's my personal preference that I'm not pinged to a talk page I'm watching. Other editors don't mind being pinged to a talk page they are watching. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Frenulum

Hi folks, I came to this page from a Genital frenectomy redirect page "Frenulum of clitoris (may be termed "clitoris frenectomy")" However, there is currently no mention on this page of Frenulum. It may have been removed in the past? I do not know enough about the topic to add this info myself (That's why I clicked on the link in the first place). Would an expert in the topic please add some details on what this is and if so, revert my April 8 change to the disambiguation page. Thanks!Rusl (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Rusl. I moved your post down because, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout, newer sections go at the bottom.

In the "Gross anatomy and histology" section, there is currently the following text: "The frenulum of clitoris is a frenulum on the under-surface of the glans and is created by the two medial parts of the labia minora." There is not much to state on the frenulum of clitoris, which is why it doesn't have its own Wikipedia article. I've corrected the "frenulum of clitoris" redirect to point to the "Gross anatomy and histology" section. It pointed there before, but the title of that section was changed, which disturbed the redirect's accuracy. But as for the wording "clitoris frenectomy"? I know that was added to the page you mentioned to refer to a procedure, but I haven't seen sources use that terminology. On a side note: The frenulum of clitoris is occasionally called "clitoral frenulum" or "frenulum clitoridis." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Changes to the non-human primate section

Hi mods (or whoever reads this talk page),

As some have noticed by now, I have assigned myself as the student editor of this Wikipedia page. I'm posting here what my plans are for the page, since this is a Good Article and I don't want to make anyone upset with how I handle this topic.

My plans are to add information only to the non-human part of the page. I will be adding mainly info on clitoris morphology in lemuriformes (strepsirrhines?) as well as moles, because these two groups seem to be a tack-on afterthought even though there is a surprising body of research about their clitoral anatomy and the possible endocrinology underpinnings. I have noticed the hidden note that shows in visual editing, which says that the clitoris has "not been studied extensively in non-human animals which is why there is not a section for each of them", however I believe with some reformatting this issue will not be a problem. In particular, I will turn the "Spider monkey and bonobos" section in to just a "primates" section wherein I can add information about strepsirrhines (which are primates, if there was any confusion). For moles, if there is not enough information to constitute its own paragraph (although there has been some really interesting histological work done on mole reproductive systems which shows that females have testicular tissue fused to their ovaries), I plan on combining it with the small amount of mouse information in to a rodent section.

If you have questions or concerns, let me know. I intend only to use scholarly sources in my editing, and only plan to add information to the non-human animal section.

Decampr (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Decampr, regarding User:Decampr/sandbox, your setup looks fine for the most part. But I don't see that an "Other mammals" subsection is needed. That should simply be merged with the "General" subsection. And I do plan to cut a lot of what is in the "Cats, sheep and mice" subsection because of the extensive quoting and primary sources (see WP:Primary sources). If you can, I suggest you stick to non-primary sources. For why, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Your sandbox is missing the following piece that is currently seen in the Clitoris article: "In female galagos (bush babies), the clitoris is long and pendulous with a urethra extending through the tip for urination." Why did you remove it? At User:Decampr/Clitoris/bibliography, you state "there was some misinfo in the Hyena text lmfao." What misinformation? Keep in mind that while this article is WP:GA, it's not perfect. Even WP:Featured articles -- the highest standard we have -- can be imperfect. I've had to correct mistakes in the article before. On a side note: You need to correct the punctuation in your draft. By this, I mean that, per MOS:REFPUNCT, punctuation comes before references.

Please don't WP:Ping me (link my username) if you reply. Since I watch this article, there is no need for that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for the comments. I made the "Other mammals" section because I thought that having a section called "Cats, Sheep, and Mice" felt like an odd category to have, and it made more sense to me to generalize it. So are you suggesting that that section be deleted entirely and that info moved to "General"? For the galago tidbit I listed galagos in the list in the first sentence of the last paragraph of my new "Non-human primates" section (galagos are primates). This sentence describes general trends in clitoral morphology in strepsirrhine primates, the clade of primates which galagos are a part of along with lemurs. From my research, galagos appear to have a similar clitoral morphology to many lemur species, so it made sense to lump them in with the other strepsirrhine info. Finally, the (presumed) misinfo I discovered in the third paragraph of the hyena section stated "Due to their higher levels of androgen exposure, the female hyenas are significantly more muscular and aggressive than their male counterparts; social-wise, they are of higher rank than the males, being dominant or dominant and alpha, and the females who have been exposed to higher levels of androgen than average become higher-ranking than their female peers." This seems to imply either that: adult nonpregnant female spotted hyenas produce higher levels of androgens than are seen in other adult female mammals (this is false, see ) or that: female fetuses have higher levels of exposure to androgens in utero which results in female masculinization (this is contradicted in the paragraph above this statement by the statement " this pseudo-penis's formation seems largely androgen-independent because it appears in the female fetus before differentiation of the fetal ovary and adrenal gland". There are also data that suggest female fetuses are protected from too much in utero testosterone exposure when the mother begins producing more testosterone during pregnancy). The sources cited in the statement are also cited in the Drea review, so they are credible, the wording is just misleading at best or misunderstanding of the literature at worst. The person that wrote this statement possibly meant to say that androgen exposure during growth and development influences aggression levels in juveniles/adults, which are what the sources are talking about. I've made a temporary edit in my sandbox but I intend to rework it and add some more recent sources, although it appears most of this research has come out of the Glickman lab at UC Berkely. Also, I apologize for the vague and unprofessional annotation in my bibliography, I didn't really think anyone except my classmates would be seeing it.

Thanks again for the comments, I hope this cleared things up. I will be working on this for a few more weeks so hopefully I can work out the kinks so we're all happy with my edits. Decampr (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Decampr, yes, I'm suggesting that the "Other mammals" section you planned to create (including retaining the "cats, sheep and mice" material) be merged to the "General" subsection. I'll take care of the trimming since there are edits I want to make after you are done editing the article. These are edits I've been planning to make before you took an interest in editing the article on; so it's not about your editing.

Regarding galagos, yes, I saw that you still mention them. I just wondered why you removed what was there. It seems that you substituted the "clitoral morphology of the ring-tailed lemur is the most well-studied" and "they are described as having 'elongated, pendulous clitorises that are tunneled by a urethra'" piece in its place.

Regarding the "due to their higher levels of androgen exposure" paragraph currently in the article, it seems that, in my attempt to summarize this 2007 Szykman et al. source and this 2006 "Painful Realities of Hyena Sex" Live Science source years ago, my wording came out a little muddled. The Live Science source states, "Unlike most mammalian societies, female spotted hyenas run the show and are significantly more muscular and aggressive than males. After studying hyenas in Kenya for nearly two decades, researchers discovered that in the final stages of pregnancy, high-ranking females provide their developing offspring with higher levels of androgen—a male sex hormone associated with aggression—than lower-ranking mothers provide to their developing young." Also notice that at Spotted hyena#Mating, reproduction, and development, the following text (which I didn't write) is relayed: "In the final stages of pregnancy, dominant females provide their developing offspring with higher androgen levels than lower-ranking mothers do. The higher androgen levels – the result of high concentrations of ovarian androstenedione – are thought to be responsible for the extreme masculinization of female behavior and morphology. This has the effect of rendering the cubs of dominant females more aggressive and sexually active than those of lower ranking hyenas."

The 2009 Drea source you cited, which comments on "pre- and postnatal exposure to circulating androgens, states "in several species, females diverge from the traditional pattern, converging on the male form or even reversing sexual dimorphisms. Such 'masculinized' females might show elongation of the clitoris, enhanced body size, and aggressively mediated social dominance over males." But it also states that "Although certain lines of evidence implicate testosterone in female masculinization, the role for sex steroids in female development remains unclear." In your sandbox, you reworded the "due to their higher levels of androgen exposure" paragraph. For example, it states, "However, female social dominance is not correlated with higher testosterone in the adult female; in fact, nonpregnant adult female spotted hyenas have similar testosterone levels to the average female mammal. The role of androgens in female masculinization is still unclear." You should drop "in fact" per WP:Editorializing.

As for androgens? Yes, the pseudo-penis's formation seems largely androgen-independent, but, as is clear by what I quoted above, researchers have considered and debated the effect of androgens on other aspects regarding the female spotted hyena. This 2006 "Biology of Aggression" source, from Oxford University Press, page 195, for example, states, "That female spotted hyenas are more aggressive than other female mammals led to the hypothesis that female dominance in spotted hyenas evolved due to selection favoring large androgenized females that can monopolize access to food resources in competitive feeding situations [...]. High levels of androgens during ontogeny are likely to have organizational effects on aggressive behavior of female spotted hyenas [...], but female dominance in this species is most likely a function of (a) matrilineal association, (b) coalitions between related females, (c) the inheritance of maternal rank, and (d) the general lack of aggressiveness in males, resulting in habitual male submission toward females." Notice how it states "most likely" rather than "is" and gives more than one reason, including the males being less aggressive than the females? This 2011 "Encyclopedia of Power" source, from Sage Publications, page 249, states, "Female spotted hyenas are exposed to high levels of androgens during critical developmental periods and so are 'masculinized' in both appearance and behavior. [...] They are highly aggressive and dominate males. Although testosterone levels in females are lower than those of males during adulthood, females have high levels of other androgens in addition to testosterone. Like meerkats, dominant pregnant hyenas have particularly high levels of androgens that make female offspring behaviorally dominant and aggressive." So we should briefly relay what different sources state. Wikipedia:Verifiability tells us that "if reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." We shouldn't try to use a primary source/lone study to contradict what secondary and/or tertiary sources, or the more general literature, state. If something is outdated or contradicted by newer research, we should include a secondary and/or tertiary source explicitly stating that. The 2009 Drea source reviews the literature on endocrine mediators of masculinization in female mammals, but I don't know how much it focuses it on spotted hyenas. And what it states doesn't mean we shouldn't mention what other sources have stated on the matter. Given that there are sources stating what I quoted above about females hyenas and androgen, that is even more reason to mention it...even if we are noting something along the lines of "previous reports were in error." It would be different if the "social dominance in relation to higher testosterone" aspect wasn't discussed as much as it is with regard to female spotted hyenas. Your rewording also neglects to mention that female spotted hyenas are larger than male spotted hyenas.

Because of above sources I've quoted (and other sources that state the same thing), I can't agree to your rewording of the "due to their higher levels of androgen exposure" paragraph as is. It needs more material. Taking into consideration what I stated above, it'll be interesting to see how you further reword it. We could add something like "While some sources have stated [so and so], other sources have stated [so and so]." Or "While older sources have stated [so and so], newer research has indicated [so and so]." I appreciate you looking over text I haven't paid close attention to in years. It's like peer review. And no need to apologize. I understand how an article with a WP:Good article tag but with imperfect text or text that might be considered misleading, or even an outright error, can make one chuckle. This is why I noted that "while this article is WP:GA, it's not perfect. Even WP:Featured articles -- the highest standard we have -- can be imperfect. I've had to correct mistakes in the article before." At the same time, some people may consider one or more statements they find in the article to be errors because the literature has conflicting information on different aspects regarding this topic. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey again, I'm just getting back around to this page since my academic life has been greatly disrupted by the coronavirus pandemic. I appreciate your comments about female spotted hyena androgen exposure, and I want to research the mechanisms more myself before I decide if I want to definitively change anything. In my sandbox for now, I've restored the original text, but just added "Due to their higher levels of androgen exposure during fetal development.." as a temporary fix. Female genital masculinization is the subject of my term paper for this class as well so hopefully when I have written it up I will have more substance to add to the discussion on endocrine mechanisms of behavioral masculinization in spotted hyenas.

I tweaked my bit on strepsirrhine primates a bit, saying "Many strepsirrhine species exhibit elongated clitorises that are either fully or partially tunneled by the urethra, including mouse lemurs, dwarf lemurs, all Eulemur species, lorises and galagos". Is this sufficient? I've found a lot of variation in my research on strepsirrhines, so I wanted to make as generalized a statement as possible. Everywhere I look it seems that I find mention of another species with masculinized genitals!

Finally, I've added a semi-brief section on Talpid moles and their unique reproductive system if you want to take a look over it.

I'm hoping to move my work over sooner rather than later so feedback is much appreciated. Decampr (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the "due to their higher levels of androgen exposure" paragraph, it's fine that you removed the "being dominant or dominant and alpha, and the females who have been exposed to higher levels of androgen than average become higher-ranking than their female peers" part. Per what I stated above, I can tweak the information on androgen exposure, adding other aspects to this topic per the "Biology of Aggression" source and/or other sources. This additional information should also be added to Spotted hyena article, which I would take care of.

Regarding "Many strepsirrhine species", you didn't have to change that. At first glance, it looks okay.

Talpid moles material looks okay.

The "other mammals" material should still be combined with the "General" subsection. But like I stated, I will cut and tweak that material anyway.

I'll tweak anything that needs tweaking after it's added. For example, this article uses a particular reference format. So I'll also change your reference format to align with the article's style. And as noted, I want to avoid primary sources; so I will replace your primary sourced material with secondary sources and tertiary sources if possible. If after a certain time, I don't see any secondary sources or tertiary sources for whatever material, I might remove the material; "a certain time" can be a year from now if I;m still here a year from now. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Mole and strep stuff is up, my prof needed something to grade haha. I didn't touch the cats, sheep, mice (proposed "other mammals" section on my page) since it didn't seem worth it if you plan on overhauling it. I'm still interested in adding more about the endocrine mechanisms of hyena behavioral masculinization, but still need time to read through the lit. I can ping here when I write some stuff in my sandbox, if that works. Decampr (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

You can simply post here. I'd rather not be pinged since I'm watching the article. I can't promise that I also wouldn't alter whatever you'd add on spotted hyenas, but "alter" doesn't automatically mean "change everything." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

_______

References

description and illustrations badly out of date

Hello,

I just stumbled on 'new' information about the clitoris, resulting in editing needed on the page. It turns out the visible part of the clitoris is only about 10% of it. Very few sources are aware of this, apparently, including this Wikipedia page. I am not equipped to update it, however here is a link verifying what I'm writing, and providing an excellent source for whomever does the edit: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-clitoris-uncovered-an-intimate-history/

I love Wikipedia, use it all the time, and donate when I can. Please keep up the excellent work.

Dougwescott77 (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Doug W https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-clitoris-uncovered-an-intimate-history/

I appreciate your enthusiasm for Wikipedia. However, this already appears to be covered in the 1st lead picture, as well as under "Gross anatomy and histology" along with another picture there. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

To the caption of "Image2, Clitoris detailed.jpg" append the clarifying sentence:

"Pubic hair has been removed from the model for anatomical clarity." Amarliber (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: It's already self-explanatory to the reader. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 01:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Suggest two wiki pages; ‘human clitoris’ & ‘clitoris’

Hi There

I suggest Wikipedia create separate ‘human clitoris’ and ‘clitoris’ pages. I suggest this update for a multitude of reasons, not least of all because there is a ‘human penis’ page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_penis) and a separate ‘penis’ page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis) for male genitalia.

Also, from the opening paragraph, I suggest removing the ‘unlike the penis..’ wording or (at a minimum) add the equivalent ‘unlike the clitoris... ‘ wording to the human penis page.

Parity is as important within the pages of Wikipedia as it is in the real world.

I tried to suggest edits to this page back in March 2018 but gave up as the whole process is way too complex, clunky and time consuming. I also found the response to my suggestions, wholly inadequate.

That said, having reviewed it again recently I see that changes Have been made to the page and I would say that, (aside from the mention of other species and male organs as outlined above), it is much improved.

Thanks FlipertyFlop (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning the date; I was able to look in the archives and saw that this and this discussion address these matters. Are you Jessicapin? Note, too, that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is widely considered a poor argument. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The above editor is BlueSky444 from this aforementioned discussion you linked to. FlipertyFlop states that they "found the response to [their] suggestions, wholly inadequate." I fail to see how the responses were wholly inadequate. Experienced editors, including myself, were very clear in that discussion. Our responses were/are based on Wikipedia guidelines and common sense. Editors keep pointing to the Penis and Human penis articles for a reason to have a Vagina article and a Human vagina article, a Vulva article and a Human vulva article, and a Clitoris article and a Human clitoris article. This recent vulva move discussion is an extension of that. But as noted times before, there is so much to state about the penis in other animals. There is not nearly as much to state about the vagina, vulva, or specifically the clitoris, in other animals. See what the "Other animals" section of the Vagina article states about the lack of research on female genitalia for different animals. Yes, there is more to state about the clitoris than the vagina in other animals, which is why the "Other animals" section in this article is currently bigger than the "Other animals" section in the Vagina article (and was recently expanded via a WP:Class assignment), but there is still no need to split that content out into its own article, unnecessarily making it so that readers have to go to a separate article just to read the non-human animal material and making this article less rich. There is no reason to state "unlike the clitoris" in the lead of the Penis or Human penis article. This is because the whole reason why "Unlike the penis" is in the lead of this article is to point out that the clitoris "usually does not contain the distal portion (or opening) of the urethra and is therefore not used for urination." Stating this is not sexist. We've been over that. In what way would "unlike the clitoris" be used in the lead of the Penis or Human penis article? In what way is it necessary there? As for the reverse being necessary in this article? It is important to note in the lead, just like we do lower in the article, such a significant way that the clitoris differs from the penis. Again, we've been over this. Coming back two years later and expecting different answers on this matter is not productive. Also, per that 2018 discussion, the Penis article is likely to once again primarily focus on the human penis article and a penis article for other animals is likely to be created. I simply haven't yet gotten around to making that proposal. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

More pictures of non-human animal clits

It would be useful to have more pictures of non-human animal clitorises (especially non-human primate clitorises) so that readers can compare them to human ones. Most of the pictures on this page are of human clits and there's one drawing of a hyena clit. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 16:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

8,000 nerve claim is unsubstantiated (in humans)

This claim is not substantiated by primary sources:

The clitoral glans, or the entire clitoris, is estimated to have about 8,000 sensory nerve endings

Confusingly, there are legitimate sources, such as anatomy texts, that repeat this information. However, with respect to humans, it is unfounded. One of the two sources cited in the article is "Sexuality Now: Embracing Diversity" by Janell Carroll. Carroll's book in turn cites another book "Woman: An Intimate Geography" By Natalie Angier. Angier incorrectly cites two books by Thomas Lowry, "The Classic Clitoris" (1978) and "The Clitoris" (1976). Lowry's count of nerve fibers referred to cows, not humans. Here is a photograph of the relevant page in Lowry's "The Clitoris".

All references to "8,000 nerves" in the ~30 or so books, magazines, web articles, etc.., that I have checked either have no source, cite Lowry, or cite a chain of secondary sources that eventually leads back to Lowry 1976.

Therefore, this claim should be removed, identified as a probable myth, or modified to indicate "in bovines". Though Lowry 1976 has not apparently been corroborated, so the scientific status of this claim, even in bovines, is less than strong. Textorcist (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Textorcist, we've been over this multiple times. You will want to review this discussion, especially this subsection of it and what is below that. As noted there, the 8,000 nerve endings piece (which is specified to be about the clitoral glans in some sources, while other sources seem to be talking about the entire clitoris) is also in the "Di Marino's Anatomic Study of the Clitoris and Bulbo-Clitoral Organ" academic book. And with so many academic sources reporting this, we aren't going to leave it out of the article. Wikipedia follows; it does not lead. We go by what the WP:Reliable sources state and with WP:Due weight. And as seen at WP:PSTS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Wikipedia does not prefer primary sources. You can reply to me in a way that argues against the way Wikipedia works, but I'm not debating this again. At least not this year. I pointed you to a previous discussion, where multiple editors considered the topic and came to the same conclusion. If the literature is wrong on this, we have to wait until reputable sources state that it's wrong. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, Flyer22 Frozen, I am new here. I went looking for previous discussion before posting, but I did not find it. I see no reason to rehash what has already been discussed at length several times. I would be content to delete my remarks on this page to avoid needless clutter, if that is appropriate. Thanks for your time.Textorcist (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing own comments. It would be best to leave your comments. They will simply be archived and this section can be used for further reference when this matter comes up again. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2020

I would like to make some grammatical changes to this article to lessen the amount of androcentric bias present in it. Makenzie123$2 (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Currently you cannot edit the article directly since your article is new, to request an edit made by a user which has been autoconfirmed submit requests in the form "change x to y". Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Suggested caption clarification

It would clarify if the caption to the picture of an 'Exposed glans clitoris' could explain to the reader the angle it is taken from (eg looking head down?).Cloptonson (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

a taste of androcentrism or sexism or gender discrimination

Wikipedia is not censored.

But androcentric and seems to promote sexism and gender discrimination or both:

compare:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Penis

There are talks from 2020 there. Here just for 30 days...

because of the size?

--2003:F2:8710:2C01:CDB8:1F80:B443:25E7 (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you suggesting Wikipedia is androcentric because of how often the archivebot archives the comment page? Each talk page archives differently and not one is done due to any bias. Yo bailaba (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

New information comparing dolphin vs human clitorises

Perhaps someone should/could add a subsection of "Other Animals" (considering Moles already have their own sub-section) with new information we've learned about the similarities between dolphin and human clits?

It's pretty fascinating how similar they are, except the dolphins have a major advantage due to a notable anatomical difference: "The location, though, is different between the two species. The tip of a dolphin's clitoris is located lower than a woman's, right at the dolphin's vaginal opening. "So essentially, there is no way that the copulation could happen [in dolphins] without stimulation of the clitoris," said Brennan."

some sources:

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-insights-function-dolphin-clitoris.html

https://plan.core-apps.com/eb2019/abstract/fc3c5a76-2dab-4997-af46-25f331877a19

https://www.insidescience.org/news/research-suggests-dolphins-clitorises-are-human-clitorises-better-placed

https://theconversation.com/all-female-mammals-have-a-clitoris-were-starting-to-work-out-what-that-means-for-their-sex-lives-114916 Robledoux (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Better resources than those? Academic resources? If so, maybe a piece about this should be said in in the general information holder of the other animals area. It doesn't appear there's enough detail about this for an individual subsection. GBFEE (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Picture depicts clitoral adhesion instead of healthy, normally shaped clitoris

Hello!

I'd like to propose a change in the picture description for the following picture in the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Glans_clitoridis_with_adhesion_of_the_preputium.jpg As indicated by the jpg name, this is a photo of a glans clitoris with adhesions, which means that this picture doesn't depict a normal looking, healthy clitoris and is thus misleading.

I therefore propose to change the description below the picture from "An exposed clitoral glans" to "A partially exposed clitoral glans which can't be fully exposed due to a mild case of adhesions to the clitoral hood. Medical treatment can restore the complete retractability of the hood (Link to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoral_hood#Development_and_variation)."

Due to the lack of a separate article for clitoral adhesion in English Wikipedia, I'd like to keep the description as long as that: It's important for people with clitorides to know that this is a condition that can occur, and that it is treatable. However, my partner is in the process of translating the German article on clitoral adhesion, so this may then be linked to instead: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klitorisadh%C3%A4sion (German version) Therapiehase (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therapiehase (talk • contribs) 22:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Picture depicts clitoral adhesion instead of healthy, normally shaped clitoris pt. 2

Hello,

I posted my request for correction ("Picture depicts clitoral adhesion instead of healthy, normally shaped clitoris") in early December, yet nothing happened ever since. I can't edit semi-protected articles because I'm new to Wikipedia, so I need someone to do it for me. It would be very nice if someone could apply the suggested changes or discuss them with me, at least.

Thank you! Therapiehase (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I altered the caption, thanks. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2020 and 29 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Decampr. Peer reviewers: NovakLeon, TanishaT, Pktka.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Helen O'Connell illustration: orthography and description

With the Helen O'Connell illustration is a sentence:

"Helen O'Connell has sent an release statement to permissions-commons."

It contains inorthographic spelling: "an" instead of "a".

Furthermore, it would help if someone knowledgeable would indicate which parts of the illustration correspond to which of the structures clitoris, uterus, bladder. They are mentioned now, but not indicated any further.Redav (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the typo, I fixed that at Commons. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Glans clitoridis with adhesion of the preputium.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Dissection image

Sciencia58 has a problem with the dissection image. They described it as a "shocking image of a dissected clitoris from a dead woman." Sciencia58 moved the image to a less relevant place.[1]

I did a rvt. I suggested Sciencia58 bring their concern to the talk page. After this, Sciencia58 made a pointy edit, putting "of a dead woman" in the caption.[2] I did a rvt on this too and moved the image back a little higher, closer to how it'd been before Sciencia58 added other images ahead of it months ago.[3] Dissection is mentioned in this section. I removed the pointy description. Sciencia58 now even objects to the "carcass" being beside an image they added today.[4]

Sciencia58, your visceral reaction to the image confuses me. Had you not seen the image there in that section of the article before? On your user page, it says you're a "teacher for biology." Do you understand the role of cadavers and that dissections are done for research purposes? That they're commonplace in the study of anatomy and in illustrations about anatomy? Do you understand that these dissections have helped researchers understand the clitoris better? Why would you think the dissection was done on a live woman? GBFEE (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes I know, Helen O'Connell did many and this was for the benefit of billions of living women. Sciencia58 (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

About the 8,000 nerve ending fact

I've seem often this number cited on a lot of article, blogs and social media but the wikipedia source of this information "Anatomic Study of the Clitoris and the Bulbo-Clitoral Organ" by Vincent Di Marino and Hubert Lepidi, contains only a citation and not a scientific source. By doing more research i have found only a reference from a 1976 book "The Clitoris by Thomas P. Lowry and Thea Snyder Lowry" of 7733 nerve ending in the female bovine clitoris (page 41). So this number isn't scientifically backed and more research is needed on the female clitoral glans innervation.

source : https://archive.org/details/The-Clitoris-1976-Lowry-Snyder-Lowry/page/n23/mode/2up" DebugSpawn (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@DebugSpawn: I just had a long discussion with a private Facebook group, & I think you are correct. Lowry's book was also cited in Angier, Natalie (1999). Woman : an intimate geography. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. ISBN 0-585-10248-1. OCLC 1108680927., but omitting that the datum was about a cow & not a human. I think we will need to add in corrections. Peaceray (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

This has come up before, as in this discussion, which links to earlier and longer discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

This was also discussed in Talk:Clitoris/Archive 14, Talk:Clitoris/Archive 15, Talk:Clitoris/Archive 12, & Talk:Clitoris/Archive 10. Peaceray (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I examined the edit history. An IP editor first posted the 8,000 nerve endings statement without a citation here in 2009, then it was removed, then added again here with citations by User:Flyer22 Frozen in 2011. If you do not know who this editor was, please see Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/2021#Flyer22 Frozen. I believe her to be a highly respected editor.

By this edit in 2014, Flyer22 Frozen had added the scholarly book citation for Di Marino's Anatomic Study of the Clitoris and the Bulbo-Clitoral Organ (2014) to the existing citation for Carroll's book Sexuality Now: Embracing Diversity (2012). Both citations are used for the 8,000 nerve endings statement. Both are not readily available, as online versions are behind paywalls.

I found an inexpensive used version of the Carroll book (albeit 2009 instead of 2012; it should be here in two days), & the Di Marino 2014 text is available on SpringerLink, which I have applied to use via the WP:The Wikipedia Library. The I will check both texts for the 8,000 nerve endings claim & see it it comes from Lowry's The Clitoris (1976).

There are sources that support claims of higher frequency of nerves in the human clitoris over that of the glans of the human penis. Here is one:

• Shih, Cheryl; Cold, Christopher J.; Yang, Claire C. (2013). "Cutaneous Corpuscular Receptors of the Human Glans Clitoris: Descriptive Characteristics and Comparison with the Glans Penis". The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 10 (7). Elsevier BV: 1783–1789. doi:10.1111/jsm.12191. ISSN 1743-6095.

This source concludes The glans clitoris is densely innervated with cutaneous corpuscular receptors. These receptors are morphologically similar to the corpuscular receptors of the glans penis. The glans clitoris has a more variable average receptor density than the glans penis. I also not this from the discussion section These human studies and others like them focus on the nerve fibers that innervate the erectile tissues of the corpora cavernosa and those that approach the glans clitoris, rather than on the corpuscular nerve endings themselves. [...] to our knowledge, there has been no such study of the terminal nerve endings of the glans clitoris.

For now, I would recommend no change to the text until we can examine the books from Carroll & Di Marino. Perhaps by then we will have additional sources. Peaceray (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I got the 2009 edition of Carroll's Sexuality Now: Embracing Diversity. "The Clitoris" section in Chapter 4, "Female Sexual Anatomy and Physiology" states In fact, the clitoris, although much smaller, has twice the nerve endings of the penis and has a higher concentration of nerve fibers than anywhere else on the body, inluding the tongue or fingertips (Angier 1999). A sparse citation for Angier 1999 appears in the biliography. Here is a full citation, including the relevant text & page.

• Angier, Natalie (1999). "The Well-Tempered Clavier". Woman: An Intimate Geography. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. p. 60. ISBN 0-585-10248-1. OCLC 42922595 – via Internet Archive. The clitoral glans is the wick of Eros, the site where the 8,000 nerver fibers are threshed together into a proper little brain.

Alas, the chapter has neither footnotes nor end notes. However, Angier does cite the Lowerys on page 376.

In fact, the Lowerys were the editors, & the relevant chapter was authored by Berry Campbell. Here is the complete citation for that text:

• Campbell, Berry (1976). "Neurophysiology of the Clitoris". In Lowry, Thomas P.; Lowry, Thea Snyder (eds.). The clitoris. St. Louis: W.H. Green. p. 41. ISBN 0-87527-112-X. OCLC 2357876 – via Internet Archive. It may more probably inidcate that the innervation of the penis is less than that of the clitoris for it agrees with our published findings in the bovine species (loc. cit.) wehre the comparable figures were 4,033 (total of both sides) in the male to 7,733 in the femaile.

Thus, the number of nearly 8,000 nerver endings refers to cows, which seems to make this sentence in the article inappropriate: The glans (head) of the human clitoris is roughly the size and shape of a pea and is estimated to have about 8,000 sensory nerve endings.

This applies to Carroll's Sexuality Now: Embracing Diversity. We next need to access Di Marino's Anatomic Study of the Clitoris and the Bulbo-Clitoral Organ (2014) to see if the same situation applies to it.

Peaceray (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

It is a common internet myth that the glans clitoris (visible external part) has 8000 nerve endings (and the glans penis (penis head) "only" 4000 nerve endings). The reasons why it is incorrect: No reliable scientific source supports the calim that the clitoral glans counts 8000 nerve endings! (no reliable scientific source supports the calim that the penile glans counts 4000 nerve endings)

Here are the four unreliable and/ or unscientific "sources" that are often referred to:

1) Anatomic Study of the Clitoris and the Bulbo-Clitoral Organ by Vincent Di Marino and Hubert Lepidi on page 81:

It should be noted from the start that although the clitoral glans has the same number of sensory “terminations” and genital corpuscles as the penile glans, assessed at around 8,000, the density of these receptors, with respect to the size of each of these organs, is 50 times higher for the female glans. This means that the sensitivity of the clitoral glans is extreme 1 compared to that of the male glans, which is already very high!

This source lacks refrence or scientific background! Not to be trusted!

(It randomly claims both the clitoral glans and penile glans have 8000 nerve endings.)

Free PDF version of the book to download: https://www.pdfdrive.com/anatomic-study-of-the-clitoris-and-the-bulbo-clitoral-organ-d165977526.html

2) Sexuality Now: Embracing Diversity by Janell L. Carroll on page 104:

The clitoris, although much smaller than the penis, has twice the number of nerve endings (8,000) as the penis (4,000) and has a higher concentration of nerve fibers than anywhere else on the body, including the tongue or fingertips (Angier, 1999).

This source has refrence: Angier, 1999! It will become clear in source 3 that source 2 is a source not to be trusted!

(Source 2 (randomly) claims the clitoral glans has 8000 nerve endings and the penile glans has 4000 nerve endings.)

Free PDF version of the book to download: https://www.pdfdrive.com/sexuality-now-embracing-diversity-d189116922.html

3) Woman: an intimate geography by Angier Natalie in the PDF version on page 65/398 en 66/398:

The clitoris is simply a bundle of nerves: 8,000 nerve fibers, to be precise. That's a higher concentration of nerve fibers than is found anywhere else on the body, including the fingertips, lips, and tongue, and it is twice the number in the penis.

This source lacks refrence or scientific background! Not to be trusted!

(It randomly claims the clitoral glans has 8000 nerve endings and the penile glans has 4000 nerve endings.)

Free PDF version of the book to download: https://www.pdfdrive.com/woman-an-intimate-geography-d176008799.html

4) The Clitoris by Thomas P. Lowry and Thea Snyder Lowry on page 41:

A study done on male and female bovines can not be used to make conclusions for humans. This source can not be used!

Free online version: https://archive.org/details/The-Clitoris-1976-Lowry-Snyder-Lowry/page/n23/mode/2up

OTHER FACTS TO CONCIDER:

1) Both the clitoris (as a whole structure: internally and externaly) and the penis are innervated by respectivily the dorsal nerve of the clitoris and the dorsal nerve of the penis. These two nerve branches have the same average diamater:

Dorsal nerve of the clitoris diameter: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31768527/ Results

Dorsal nerve of the penis diameter: https://www.goldjournal.net/article/S0090-4295(13)01176-X/fulltext Results

The clitoris and the penis (both as a whole structure) devolp from the genital tubercle in the embryonic phase and the fetal phase. The clitoris and penis are homologous organs. The fact that the penis and the clitoris (both as a whole structur) are homologous and innervated by the same nerve with the same diameter implies that the penis and clitoris (both as a whole structur) are equally sensitive regardeless of the numerical nerve endings (in the glans).

2) Although clitoris and penis devolp from the genital tubercle, the clitoral glans and penile glans are not te same tissue! See it for yourself in the link down below, it is a nice image! The clitoral glans consist of corpus cavernosum, erectile tissue. The penile glans consist of corpus spongiosum, non erectile tissue. Comparing the clitoral glans and penile glans does not compare identical structures! In famales the vestibular bulbs consist of corpus spongiosum.

Image of anatomy of clitois and penis: https://images.eoswetenschap.eu/paragraph/photo/image/Schermafbeelding%202021-08-19%20om%2012.47.31.png?auto=format&fit=max&h=1080&ixlib=php-1.1.0&q=65&w=1920&s=0524b412d2e676a2b198c37bbe47b6f7

CONCLUSION

We should delete all the claims about numerical nerve endings in the (glans) clitoris and the (glans) penis because we can not find any reliable scientific source to suport those claims! DaanAn0123 (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that the relevant chapter in Lowery & Lowery 1976 is by Berry Campbell & would be properly referred to as Campbell 1976

• Campbell, Berry (1976). "Neurophysiology of the Clitoris". In Lowry, Thomas P.; Lowry, Thea Snyder (eds.). The clitoris. St. Louis: W.H. Green. p. 41. ISBN 0-87527-112-X. OCLC 2357876 – via Internet Archive. It may more probably indicate that the innervation of the penis is less than that of the clitoris for it agrees with our published findings in the bovine species (loc. cit.) where the comparable figures were 4,033 (total of both sides) in the male to 7,733 in the female.

The claim is applicable to two specimens, one female, one male, of sheep. I agree that any mention of humans with respect to this should be removed. If Campbell 1976 is to be used, the numbers should be corrected to what the study actually indicates & moved to the paragraph on sheep under the Cats, sheep and mice section. Peaceray (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

If Berry Campbell only used one female bovine and one male bovine that fallacy of incomplete evidence occurs.

Additionally, the diameter of one free nerve ending is 50nm. The diameter of a medium hair is 65µm. The diameter of a free nerve ending is 1300 times smaller than the diameter of one average hair. It seems unlikely that Berry Campbell, in 1976, really "counted" those verry small nerve endsings in the pea size clitoral glans. How would he have done the "counting"? Just for one female bovine and one male bovine... No background is given on how he counted those nerve endings. No refrence is made. I think these numerical claims by Berry Campbell are total speculation.

I think we should ignore the work of Lowery, 1976. 2A02:A03F:8B2C:C400:35A0:20B:C60D:3B51 (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I contributed about 5/6 of the current properties & references to Campbell's Wikidata record. He had a reputation of being meticulous & exacting, much to the consternation of many of his students. With this, I think we can dispense the doubt as to whether he actually counted the nerves as something due to ignorance about the man & his work. I think it would also explain why his work was limited to two specimens.

More to the point, with regard to the allegation of cherry picking, I think that if we state the caveat as he himself did in his quote, this would be adequate. What Campbell found in the female & male sheep specimens seems to be in line with what Shih, Cold & Yang 2013, pp. 1783–1789 had to indicate in their study of human cadavers regarding their average clitoral-to-penile nerve bundle ratio.

• Shih, Cheryl; Cold, Christopher J.; Yang, Claire C. (2013). "Cutaneous Corpuscular Receptors of the Human Glans Clitoris: Descriptive Characteristics and Comparison with the Glans Penis". The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 10 (7). Elsevier BV: 1783–1789. doi:10.1111/jsm.12191. ISSN 1743-6095.

That is behind a paywall, but you can see the relevant information in the Corpuscular receptors per 100x high powered field (HPF) table at:

• Shih, Cheryl; Cold, Christopher; Yang, Claire (2013). "1570 CUTANEOUS CORPUSCULAR RECEPTORS OF THE HUMAN GLANS CLITORIS: DESCRIPTIVE CHARACTERISTICS AND COMPARISON WITH THE GLANS PENIS". Journal of Urology. 189 (4S). Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.3120. ISSN 0022-5347.

Peaceray (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Peaceray The study you mentioned (Shih, Cheryl; Cold, Christopher; Yang, Claire (2013)). Is not in line with Campbell (1976) I think.

Campbell's work focuses on counting the numerical amount of nerve fibres within the dorsal nerve of the clitoris/ penis I believe. The dorsal nerve of the clitoris/ penis is a branch of the main pudendal nerve.

Shih & Cheryl (2013) count the numerical amount of Corpuscular receptors per 100x high powered field (HPF) on the clitoral glans surface and penile glans surface. It is indeed true that the clitoris varies between 1-14 and the penis 1-3 100x HPF. The penile glans surface however is 50 times larger than the clitoral glans surface. One 100x HPF is a very small area unit. Relatively, one HPF covers less of the penile glans surface than the clitoral glans surface. The total amount of Corpuscular receptors in the penile glans need an additional factor for its lager surface relative to the clitoral glans. I do not know that factor. It sure is > 1.

Conclusion: Shih & Cheryl only allows to conclude that "The glans clitoris has greater variability in receptor density compared to the glans penis.". The study of Shih & Cheryl (2013) and the work of Campbell (1976) have nothing in common. Shih & Cheryl (2013) focus on the numerical amount of Corpuscular receptors per 100x HPF (area unit) in the clitoal glans and penis glans. Campbell (1976) focuses on the numerical amount of nerve fibres within the dorsal nerve of the clitoris/penis (a branch of pudendal nerve). DaanAn0123 (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that both studies support the general conclusion that there clitoris tends to be numerically more innervated than the penis, albeit in different species & by different neurophysiological mechanisms. Peaceray (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Peaceray How can you conclude that "clitoris tends to be numerically more innervated than the penis" based on Shih & Cheryl (2013)? The clitoral glans is numerically (1-14 100x HPF) more innervated per unit are (100x HPF) than the penile glans (1-3) per unit are (100x HPF 100x HPF). However, the penile glans has a total glans surface 50 times larger than the clitoral glans (pea sized)! The penile glans as a whole has way more unit areas than the clitoral glans as a whole. The clitoral glans having more free nerve endings per unit are (100x HPF) does not mean it has more free nerve endings on the clitoral glans as a whole compared to penile glans!

The clitoris (organs as a whole) having more free nerve endings than the penis (organ as a whole) would be in conflict with:

A) they are homologues organs, meaning that they devolp from the same fetal tissue.

B) they are innervated by the same nerve branch, the dorsal nerve of the penis/ clitoris. These nerves have the same average diameter:

Dorsal nerve of the clitoris diameter: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31768527/ Results

Dorsal nerve of the penis diameter: https://www.goldjournal.net/article/S0090-4295(13)01176-X/fulltext Results

These are more recent and reliable studies than the work of Campbell (1976).

C) the dorsal nerve of the penis/ clitoris are branches from main nerve pudendal nerve. The pudendal nerve has 3 nerve branches: Inferior anal (rectal) nerve; Perineal nerve and Dorsal nerve of the penis/clitoris. The pudendal nerve in women and men has equal diameter on average of 4.67mm. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15768420/#:~:text=We%20measured%20the%20average%20diameter,be%2025.14%20%2B%2F%2D%2010.29%20mm.).

In different species the clitoris has different functions. Hyenas give birth trough the clitoris. Female dolphines are the only large animals known to orgasm. Studies on numerical nerve endings in glans on animels likely have no implications for humans.

A basic ruele in positive science is that references should be clear, accurate and not controversial. If a scientist comes with new facts than a complete methodology should be given. How were the experiments performed...? Methodology is absent in all the studies that make claims regarding numerical nerve endings in penile glans and clitoral glans, except Shih & Cheryl (2013). All scientific facts should be supported by experiments, methodology and references. If this is not the case than it can not be trusted! As long we can not find a clear reliable scientific source about the total number of nerve endings in the total surface of the clitoral/ penile glans, we do not know the total amount of nerve endings in the total penile/ clitoral glans surface. Shih & Cheryl (2013) do only meassure the amount of nerve endings per unit area (100x HPF) but not the total glans surface! Shih & Cheryl (2013) do not conclude anything about the total amount of nerve endings in the clitoral/penile glans. See there own conclusion (https://www.auajournals.org/doi/10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.3120): The glans clitoris is densely innervated with cutaneous corpuscular receptors, and these receptors are morphologically similar to the corpuscular receptors of the glans penis. The glans clitoris has greater variability in receptor density compared to the glans penis. DaanAn0123 (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

What I want to know is why we're entertaining the idea of removing the 8,000 nerve ending claim at all. Didn't the discussions Crossroads and Peaceray link to above conclude that we shouldn't remove it because reliable sources go farther than our own opinions and guesswork and "there are legitimate sources, such as anatomy texts, that repeat this information"? Peaceray, you appear to be taking DaanAn0123's word for it that Anatomic Study of the Clitoris and the Bulbo-Clitoral Organ "lacks scientific background" and is "Not to be trusted!" May I ask, on what grounds? Is there a source for that? DaanAn0123's words are not a source we can use. 190.201.213.146 (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

We are entertaining the idea of removing the 8,000 nerve ending in clitoral glans (and 4000 in penile glans) because it can all be traced back to one inittial source! This source is "The Clitoris by Thomas P. Lowry and Thea Snyder Lowry". Page 41 (written by Campbell) claims that the dorsal nerve of the clitoris containes 8000 nerve fibres and the dorsal nerve of the penis 4000 nerve fibres.

1) Nerve fibres are not the same as free nerve endings. The common claims is 8000 free nerve endings in clitoral glans while the study done by Campbell is about nerve fibres! Nerve fibres are like wires within the dorsal nerve of the clitoris/ penis. The dorsal nerve of the clitoris/ penis is a nerve branch innervating the clitoris organ and penis organ. This has nothing to do with free nerve endigns.

2) Campbell did a study on one female bovine and one male bovine. To make general conclusions for a whole species the experiment population must be much more than just 2 individuals. On top of that is it a study performed on bovines, not on humans. Campbell's work can only be used with regard to bovines... not humans. However, the 8000 nerve endings claim is made with regard to humans.

Free online version: https://archive.org/details/The-Clitoris-1976-Lowry-Snyder-Lowry/page/n23/mode/2up

"Anatomic Study of the Clitoris and the Bulbo-Clitoral Organ" by Vincent Di Marino and Hubert Lepidi on page 81:

It should be noted from the start that although the clitoral glans has the same number of sensory “terminations” and genital corpuscles as the penile glans, assessed at around 8,000, the density of these receptors, with respect to the size of each of these organs, is 50 times higher for the female glans. This means that the sensitivity of the clitoral glans is extreme 1 compared to that of the male glans, which is already very high!

This source lacks refrence or scientific experiment specific for the nerve endings claim! Because it lacks reference we can not trust it! The book randomly claims both the clitoral glans and penile glans have 8000 nerve endings. No reference is given, no experiment on how he got this number is done! Why would you trust it?

Free PDF version of the book to download: https://www.pdfdrive.com/anatomic-study-of-the-clitoris-and-the-bulbo-clitoral-organ-d165977526.html

Nobody can provide an initial reliable source with reference and/ or scientific experiment that concluded that the clitoral glans has 8000 nerve endings and the penile glans 8000 (or 4000).

Lowery (1976) was a study done on the amount of nerve fibres, not nerve endings. It was not on humans. Population was too small to make general conclusion for the whole species.

No other source provides experimints that could lead to the 8000 nerve endings claim. All sources just claim it with or without reference. The only experiment that could have lead to the number 8000 is based on Lowery (1976) but this has nothing to do with human nerve endings in the clitoral glans. Would you read what I wrote on 00:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC) in this talk? Than you will see that none of the sources provide experiment or correct reference. Why would we trust these sources with regard to numerical nerve endings claims? DaanAn0123 (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

You asked: ""lacks scientific background" and is "Not to be trusted!" May I ask, on what grounds? Is there a source for that?"

Answer: in positive science only hypothesis that are proven to be correct and true are an actuel fact. Only these sources are to be trusted. To proof a hypothesis correct, one must perform methodological experiments that confirm the hypothesis (or give a theoretical proof (like in math)). The question is not when to not trust a source (like you do). The question is when can you trust a source! You turn it around. A scientist must prove a hypothesis to be correct. It is not presumed to be correct untill proven incorrect! All the "sources" make this 8000 nerve endings claim without a reference to a source that confirmed the claim to be true by methodological experiments. Often sites use some "reference" but when you fact check, it turns out to be that the referenced source itself just claimed it or has a "reference" to another site. It always results in a dead end. Anyone doing this by defenition dit not reference correcetly. Like you say "DaanAn0123's words are not a source we can use". This in general is True. Therefore everyone should always use correct reliable sources. We can not provide a scientific evidence of the 8000 nerve endings claim because it is non existent. DaanAn0123 (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Another interesting observation is that these anatomical books are in conflict with each other!

A) Anatomic Study of the Clitoris and the Bulbo-Clitoral Organ by Vincent Di Marino and Hubert Lepidi on page 81 claims both clitoral glans and penile glans have 8000 nerve endings. WhileSexuality Now: Embracing Diversity by Janell L. Carroll on page 104 claims clitoral glans has 8000 nerve endings and penile glans 4000. Does this not seems suspicious to anyone?

B) Woman: an intimate geography by Angier Natalie in the PDF version on page 65/398 en 66/398 reverences to The Clitoris by Thomas P. Lowry and Thea Snyder Lowry on page 41. Angier Natalie uses the observation that Thomas P. Lowry made (on 1 female bovine and 1 male bovine) with regards to the whole humans species. Two individuals are suddenly enough to make conclusions for a whole species? Bovines and humans are interchangeble? Thomas P. Lowry made it clear in his work it was a study on 2 bovines but Angier Natalie ignores that. Thomas P. Lowry studied nerve fibres within the dorsal nerve clitoris/penis. Angier Natalie uses that with regards to free nerve endings. Dit free nerve endings and nerve fibres became interchangeble?

I think this is more than enough to show that these sources can not be trusted. If they all were correct they would all claim the same about the amount of nerve endings in the clitoris. But they are maniifesly in conflict with each other. DaanAn0123 (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not a question of trust, but is instead the way of things here. Wikipedia has a particular operation. In this operation, we're not to say that all these sources that are WP:RS are not to be used because they're wrong. If you're from this discussion, why do you think what you're saying now departs from what was said previously? You aren't bringing anything new to the table to say that Wikipedia shouldn't mention 8,000 nerve endings while all these WP:RS and biology sites do. If you don't have a source for your claim that all these WP:RS are bad, you have no policy-based reason for removing the information. Our beliefs can't be the sources. Many of the sources that report 8,000 aren't in conflict with each other, but it's not unusual for sources to be in conflict with each other for different topics.

Revisit: "I wouldn't put too much effort into this because it is clear that Jessicapin is not yet aware of how Wikipedia works. The section heading ('Yes Silk, you got it') is not appropriate—please use something meaningful based on article content. The arguments are, well, arguments aka original research—not permitted. It's fine to mention some opinions or original research on a talk page, but they cannot be used as the basis for article content. Wikipedia is not perfect—if reliable sources have incorrect information then the article will have the same information." -- by Johnuniq. 190.201.213.146 (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

SELECTIVE TEXT COPIED FROM THE ARTICLE CLITORIS TO SHOW HOW UNCLEAR AND UNINFORMATIVE IT IS WRITTEN

1) The glans (head) of the human clitoris is roughly the size and shape of a pea and is estimated to have about 8,000 sensory nerve endings.(Carroll 2012, pp. 110–111, 252; Di Marino 2014, p. 81) (this reference is footnote 3 from the article)

Carroll 2012 claims the clitoris contains 8000 free nerve endings and the penis 4000. Di Marino 2014 claims the clitoris contains 8000 free nerve endings and the penis 8000. These two references combined make up footnote 3 in the article. They are, as a matter of fact, in conflict with each other. That undermines relability of both sources. Why should we continue to use them as if they are both reliable? One of the two is inherintly incorrect and not reliable.

2) With regard to nerve endings, the human clitoris's estimated 8,000 or more (for its glans or clitoral body as a whole) is commonly cited as being twice as many as the nerve endings found in the human penis (for its glans or body as a whole) and as more than any other part of the human body. These reports sometimes conflict with other sources on clitoral anatomy or those concerning the nerve endings in the human penis. For example, while some sources estimate that the human penis has 4,000 nerve endings, other sources state that the glans or the entire penile structure have the same amount of nerve endings as the clitoral glans or discuss whether the uncircumcised penis has thousands more than the circumcised penis or is generally more sensitive.

This text is inaccurate and uninformative. What should a Wikipedia reader do with this "information"? Wikipedia offers "multiple facts" "to chose from". The article is marked as a "good article"... Is it good? I think the essence is that information should be correct, accurate and informative! The text in the article clearly states that sources are in conflict with each other. Footnote 3 is in conflict with the two sources it uses. The author(s) who wrote this never used verified sources. Now we should find a verified source to support that the commonly used refreces are unreliable? If a statement is not suported by a relibale and verified source than it is not a fact.

POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO KEEP THE CLIMS IN WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF THE ARTICLE

I think we can keep the claims in the Wikipedia Article but not in the Introduction or under the title Clitoris#Gross anatomy and histology and Clitoris#Homology. I think we should create and extra title under title Clitoris#Society and culture or just a new title anywhere. We could mention disputed topics their. This would allow us to have a higher quality article without eradicating certain parts. Now we have it placed under Gross anatomy (title2) as if this is a fact like any other anatomical fact. But the fact of the matter is that a lot of sources making claims about numerical nerve endings in the glans are in conflict with each other. The sources are inconsistent. Reliable sources are always consisten! DaanAn0123 (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

This all seems to be a lot of WP:Original research. We go by WP:MEDRS here, which means we follow what the scientific review articles and books say. If they say the human clitoris has 8,000 nerve endings, and no sources of equal quality disagree, then we repeat that. It is not the place of random Wikipedia editors to claim that the scientists were out of line in reaching their conclusions. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@Crossroads This is not WP:Original research:

Carroll 2012 claims the clitoris contains 8000 free nerve endings and the penis 4000. Di Marino 2014 claims the clitoris contains 8000 free nerve endings and the penis 8000.

You wrote: "If they say the human clitoris has 8,000 nerve endings, and no sources of equal quality disagree, then we repeat that."

Sources on equal quality DO disagree and Wikipedia currently uses them! They both claim the clitoris contains 8000 free nerve endings. But they manifestly disagree on the penis (8000 vs. 4000). If both scientist performed good experiments and/or referencing than how can they make such different claims? This has nothing to do with original research. The fact is that the current secondary sources are in conflict, they do disagree in a way it can not be used! This is not original research.

Wikipedia clitoris article: "These reports sometimes conflict with other sources on clitoral anatomy or those concerning" We already know the sources are in conflict. DaanAn0123 (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The 4000 vs. 8000 statements about the human male penis appear to conflict partially because of circumcision.

Off-topic

Look, if you're Jessicapin, it only requires a visit to her talk page to see that she was blocked by Boing! said Zebedee for good reasons. In her unblock requests, 331dot and Yamla both say she doesn't understand what counts as reliable sources on Wikipedia and how Wikipedia works in general. 331dot said the "errors will be published as factual" talking point is not an appropriate outlook to have on Wikipedia. Well, unless you have sources saying the information is wrong. And Yamla said, "I also worry that your goal here, while noble, is WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I'm afraid you won't be unblocked to do that." So have you created another account to get around that? If so, that's not allowed. If you're not her, the resemblance is remarkable.

Regardless, you're bringing nothing new to the table. It's all been said before. You say that reliable sources are always consistent, but this just isn't true. 200.90.125.15 (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi i understand that Wikipedia want a neutral point of view with the principle of due and undue weight: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." . We can keep the 8000 (and 4000) nerve endings claim in the Wikipedia Article.

I would like one minor edit: The claim 8000 nerve endings in the clitoris glans should be deleted from the introduction because of the due and undue weight principle. The claims are explaind under Clitoris#Homology were all vieuw points are given, including the vieuw point that reports are in conflict with each other. DaanAn0123 (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

There's no need for that. There's no disagreement in the sources or the article about the absolute number of nerve endings in the clitoris - just the relative amount compared to the penis. That latter aspect is not mentioned in the lead. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Clitoridectomy : completely removed ?

Clitoridectomy more often involves parts of the clitoris being partially or completely removed during FGM, which may be additionally known as female circumcision or female genital cutting (FGC). Removing the glans of the clitoris does not mean that the whole structure is lost, since the clitoris reaches deep into the genitals.

Can the clitoris really be completely removed? Don't you rather speak here only of its external part, its accessible part?

If so, shouldn't that be specified? Ssirdeck (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you have a point that this should be further specified. Perhaps there is something that conveys "that area covered by the labia minor and protruding above the rest of the surface"?

Do we have an anatomist following this discussion who can comment?

Describing such mutilation in objective terms makes me feel uncomfortable. Peaceray (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more consistent to refer to the article that specifically deals with this subject? It globally takes into account the new knowledge on the morphology of the clitoris.

Female genital mutilation#Type I Ssirdeck (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Have a 'Human clitoris' page and a 'Clitoris' page (as is the case with Penis) & review penis references

Suggestion 1: Have a 'Human clitoris' & as well a 'Clitoris' page (as is the case with Penis)

Why: There is a Human penis & and Penis page (parity / consistency) The clitoris and the penis are homologous structures The multiple mammal references are confusing to the reader

Suggestion 2: Remove all references to the penis OR add equivalent references to the clitoris on the human penis page

Why: Parity / consistency FlipertyFlop (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)