Talk:Sex/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

WP:Undue intersex material in the lead

Intersex77 (talk · contribs), this is WP:Undue for the lead. The lead is meant to summarize the article. If you must add this material, then include it in the Sex determination section that already mentions the topic of intersex people. But I must point out that even that might be removed by someone since this article is not a legal article; it is a biological article. Also, do not use Wikipedia as a source; it is not a WP:Reliable source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I removed all mention of intersex from the lead just now. Splitting things into male/female/intersex is far too human centric - far more generally relevant is male/female/hermaphrodite. Evercat (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Evercat and Flyer22 Reborn: That seems like an improvement, per due weight. I wonder if we need to place "sexual reproduction" in the lead in context with the other main form of reproduction, i.e., asexual.

On the other hand, I'm tempted to ask what this article is actually about (and perhaps thrown an {{Unfocused}} template on it), given that the lead of this article and the lead of Sexual reproduction cover essentially the same ground, if in different ways. Per WP:AT, The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles. When I look at Sexual reproduction I know what it's about just from the title, and reading the first sentence confirms it, and introduces and sets the tone for the rest of the article, When I read the title of Sex, or look beyond it to the first sentence, or the rest of the Lead, I'm really not quite sure what to expect from the rest of the article. Perhaps this is just a case of improving the first sentence, in particular, and bringing the rest of the Lead in line with the body, but it's still really not clear what the focus of Sex is, in any coherent way, especially insofar as the second part of the statement above, namely the and distinguishes it from other articles part. In a few words: 'What is this article about?' (Perhaps this deserves its own section to discuss separately?) Mathglot (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to the WP:Lead sentence and how the article no longer seemed to be defining what "sex" is, it was not an improvement and I reverted. Furthermore, since the topic of hermaphroditc animals and intersex people is discussed lower in the article, it is not WP:Undue to have a brief mention of those aspects in the lead. And the vast majority of the biological sex literature is about males and females, as is this article. That doesn't make the topic human-centric whatsoever. As the article even notes, "Like animals, plants have developed specialized male and female gametes." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

And, of course, the article mentions that many plants are hermaphroditc. Anyway, I changed the lead to this, and then to this. "Male," "female," and "sexual reproduction" should get priority, per the literature. "Intersex" and "hermaphroditc" are discussed after that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem with the changes you made is that you overly narrowed the article to be about biological sex, which is far narrower than the subject of the article. This was always intended to be the general article, where the various meanings of sex are explained, distinguished, and linked to. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Per what I've stated above, this is not "the last good version." Sources are clear about what sex is (when not referring to sexual intercourse), and it is usually defined in terms of "male" and "female," which does not solely refer to "individuals." All I did was restore the lead sentence to what it was, without "intersex" being there. What you have done is restored the lead to something that does not make clear what the topic is about and easily makes this article look like the Sexual reproduction article, which also (unsurprisingly) mainly concerns "male" and "female." I don't have time to fully address this issue right now. But I will be returning to start an RfC about lead sentence wording for this article, and that RfC will include reliable sources proving my point. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

And the subject of this article is indeed mainly about "male," "female" and "sexual reproduction." Read it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Update: RfC started below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2017

171.79.240.181 (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change 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) 17:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Which lead sentence should we go with?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In a discussion higher up on the article talk page, concern has been expressed about the lead sentence of the article. One view is that "splitting things into male/female/intersex is far too human centric - far more generally relevant is male/female/hermaphrodite." In a similar vein, there is also sentiment that stating "are specialized into male and female varieties, each known as a sex" makes the article "overly narrowed [...] to be about biological sex, which is far narrower than the subject of the article. This was always intended to be the general article, where the various meanings of sex are explained, distinguished, and linked to." The other view is that when sources on "sex" are not talking about sexual intercourse/other sexual activity or sociological gender, they are talking about biological/anatomical sex, which are terms that redirect to this article and do not solely concern humans. There are already Sexual intercourse, Sexual activity, Sexual reproduction and Gender articles. This article is mainly about biological/anatomical sex. It is not an article for every definition of sex that exists. Sex (disambiguation) covers that. Per WP:Lead sentence, this article's first sentence should be clear what it's about.

So which lead sentence should we go with?

Option 1: "Organisms of many species are specialized into male and female varieties, each known as a sex."

Option 2: "Sexual reproduction involves the combining and mixing of genetic traits: specialized cells known as gametes combine to form offspring that inherit traits from each parent."

Option 3: Some other wording.

I'll alert WP:Biology, WP:Physiology, WP:Anatomy and WP:Med to this discussion. Sources are listed in the Discussion section below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 1 or something similar to it. This article is clearly mainly about "male," "female," "hermaphroditic," "intersex," and "sexual reproduction." This, however, is not the Sexual reproduction article. And yet the current lead (Option 2) makes it seem like it's the Sexual reproduction article. The hatnote of the article currently states, "This article is about sex in sexually reproducing organisms." And the Sex (disambiguation) page currently describes this article as: "the biological distinction of an organism between male, female or intersex, defined by the gametes it produces (or the reproductive organs it has), in anisogamous species." Both Biological sex and Anatomical sex redirect here. The Gender article and Sex and gender distinction article point here when making clear the distinction between biological sex and sociological gender. The fact that most plants and most species of snails are hermaphroditic does not make this article any less mainly about "male" and "female" and aspects in between. Furthermore, the second paragraph of the lead states, "The gametes produced by an organism define its sex: males produce small gametes (spermatozoa, or sperm, in animals; pollen in plants) while females produce large gametes (ova, or egg cells); individual organisms which produce both male and female gametes are termed hermaphroditic." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Option 1 - it's the plain meaning, and we have other articles on the other topics. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Option 3 - By virtue of its title as "Sex", this is to be the general article on the broadest meaning of the term. If there is enough information to split out an article on "biological sex" / "anatomical sex" then that article should be located at an appropriate new title. Narrowing this article leaves no place for a general article about the subject of sex. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • EncycloPetey, could you name a few of those non-biological/non-anatomical sex concepts that you think should be included in this article? I'm trying to figure out if you're looking for a WP:SETINDEX (approximately: "all things people call sex", which could easily encompass sex in at least these three senses: "My sex is male but my gender is non-binary" to "What's the baby's sex?" to "Did they have sex on the third date?", and maybe other senses, such as "It's really difficult to sex some kinds of birds"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Option 2 Similar to the current lede, but with less technical content (e.g. no need to include anisogamy and heterogamy). The lede should reflect article content, which is not primarily about dimorphic heterosexual systems. A better general introduction would be something like Sexually reproducing organisms produce gametes, specialized cells which combine to create offspring. When a species produces multiple types of gametes, organisms of that species have different sexes determined by which gametes they produce; common sexes include male, female, and hermaphrodite. FourViolas (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Option 3 The article is not meant to distinguish between biological sex or sexual reproduction but sex in the broadest sense. A link to biological/anatomical sex should redirect to that topic's section or a new article dedicated to that topic, as that's not what the entire article is about. Pagliaccious (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Option 1 or something similar to it. However one wants to delineate the scope of the page, there is no getting around the fact that the pagename is "Sex". So I'd like to see the word "sex" in bold in the lead sentence, and in a way where it makes sense to word the sentence that way. The problem with Option 2 is that it presents the page as being about, more narrowly, "sexual reproduction", and describes the cellular process whereby sexual reproduction is effected. That said, I think it might be better to add a phrase such as "for purposes of reproduction" or similar to Option 1. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Note: I replied to arguments below. Also, this is not a "significant reorganization" discussion. It is solely about the lead sentence. I also suggest that editors read the sources in the #Discussion section below and look over more sources on the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  That's a rather odd selection of sources. You've cited lesser-known authors and a couple of dictionaries, without citing the principal researchers in the field, such as Margulis. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not "a rather odd selection of sources." It is what the literature on sex, when not talking about sexual intercourse and other sexual activity or sociological gender, states. We go by WP:Reliable sources with WP:Due weight on Wikipedia. We don't go by how well-known the authors are unless analyzing how much weight to give their viewpoints. Look at any given Wikipedia article, and it will be that the vast majority of the authors of the sources are not well-known. In what way do you think that Margulis supports your stance on the article? I could see if you were arguing what FourViolas is arguing, although you would need to show how Margulis supports FourViolas's proposal. But you are arguing for the mess of an article I described in the Discussion section below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you seem to have limited your selection to works that (a) were scanned by Google, (b) are accessible through full scan, and (c) have not subsequently disappeared from Google books access, together make this a very biased and non-representative selection. Showing "what the literature says" about a particular scientific concept should never be done using an internet search of a single biased database. That's a very amateurish way of doing things. It's not a question of WP policies but of statistical bias and scientific prudence. A scattershot look at the Google Books database is a poor basis for any discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I have provided reliable sources proving my point. The sources, whether there is full access to them or not, show how sex is often defined and what is often discussed. Full access is not needed when there is access to text that is the topic of this dispute. And I looked at many sources, but only listed eight so as to not overwhelm the collapse box. You are not arguing for anything that disputes this definition/these aspects. You have yet to provide any reliable sources for what you are arguing for, which seems to be an article for everything that is sex, which is not the point of this discussion and would be a mess. If you are arguing for this to be a general sex article, you would be better off providing reliable sources defining sex as whatever it is taken to mean at any give time. On Wikipedia (and not just here either), seeing and weighting what the literature says about a particular social concept or scientific concept is commonly done using an Internet search (whether in part or solely). Where you have been? See here, here, here, and here for me doing this time and time again. And here is an example of an editor doing similarly. How else do you think we judge WP:Due weight and what is or is not correct? In that latter linked case, how else were we to conclude what the literature generally states about sexism? It is not as though I am simply basing my arguments on WP:GOOGLEHITS. What I have done is hardly any different than scanning and/or reviewing a number of reliable sources in a library using hardcover or paperback books. And you know what such books state on sex? The same thing. I have more than just a few of them here at my home, and they state the same thing the sources I listed above state. Your "biased database" and "very amateurish way of doing things" arguments make no sense. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Option 1 But together with moving this article to "Biological sex". And the sex diambig to the sex title. This is not the main meaning of the term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Option 1. The current one is verbose and I really hate that colon stuck in there (why not just make it two sentences?) The first option is concise and gets to the point. The rest of the article goes into detail about the specific joining of cells, it's not required in the very first sentence as an overview. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Option 1. As per others above. Bondegezou (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• option 1 as well--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Option 1 - per WP:LEAD, the article is one of biological reproduction of the functional and anatomical material, and this gives a decent summary of the main themes while also allowing for other items down in the body. Markbassett (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Option 2. Option 1 is misleading. Most plant species are dioecious monecious: they are not "specialized into male and female varieties", but they still reproduce by producing female and male gametes which combine to form zygotes, and that process is still sexual reproduction. Maproom (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Maproom, perhaps you have a suggestion for alternative wording? Your comment still touches on "male" and "female." And I noted above that I would be fine with something similar to Option 1. I don't like Option 2, for the same reasons that Tryptofish doesn't. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It's difficult. In biology there's an exception to everything. Here's my first shot: "Sexual reproduction occurs in many plant and animal species, including all mammals. It generates progeny which receive some of their genetic material from one parent and some from another." Alert biologists may wonder if hymenopterans are exceptions; I consider they aren't, male wasps aren't the product of sexual reproduction. But I'm sure there's scope for improving those two sentences. Maproom (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Maproom, but my issue with beginning with "sexual reproduction" is that this is not the Sexual reproduction article. Option 2 and your suggestion also do not make it very clear what this article is about. Both wordings make it seem like this is the Sexual reproduction article. Also, this discussion is about the first sentence. You stated, "In biology there's an exception to everything." So why not begin with "male, female" and "hermaphroditic," which are usually what is discussed first and mostly in sources on this topic? Like Semmendinger stated above, "[the other stuff is] not required in the very first sentence as an overview." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn: you are right on all points. I think I just confused the issue (and maybe myself). Anyway, I believe that the lead of the article is better now than it was yesterday morning; there's nothing about it that strikes me as misleading. Maproom (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Maproom, the lead hasn't changed since the RfC began. It still begins with the "Sexual reproduction involves" wording, as if this is the Sexual reproduction article. My issue with it is what Tryptofish stated above and what I have stated above and below. No need to ping me to this talk page, by the way. It's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Option 1 this clear statement, generally correct, introduces the topic well. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• NOT Option 1 Brevity is no substitute for clarity or accuracy. The terminology is assailable ("specialized(???) into male and female varieties(???), each known as a sex"???) and if condonable, is vacuous or at best unhelpful. If as a visitor from Saturn (where according to the authorities the sexes are three,) what sense could I make of that in the lede? Option 2 is better, but I prefer Option 3. JonRichfield (talk) 05:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• Option 3 - alternative - Sex can be defined as one of the male or female categories of organisms as based on their reproductive abilities or functions. In relation to humans, the WHO defines sex as the differences in the biology and physiology between the male and the female. i think the page name ought to be the first focus of the lead. Also i strongly agree with the suggestion to move the page to Biological sex--Iztwoz --Iztwoz (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)(talk) 07:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Have just noticed that the alternative suggestion is mostly on the Sex and gender distinction page in the Sex section. As there is the page Gender and if this page was to stay the same as Sex, would there be a need for the Sex and gender distinction page? --Iztwoz (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Iztwoz, if we went with the wording "Sex can be defined as one of the male or female categories of organisms as based on their reproductive abilities or functions.", it can leave readers wondering what is meant by "one of the male or female categories." But it seems that what is meant by that is that one category is male and the other is female. Also, we should state "is," not "can be defined." See WP:Refers. As for the World Health Organization (WHO), the WHO source is simply differentiating between the sociological definition of gender and biological sex. But that is just one definition of gender, as made clear in the Gender and Sex and gender distinction articles. And to distinguish between gender and biological sex, you can see that both articles point to the Gender article and to the Sex article. The WHO source supports going with a "male" and "female" option, but it is focused on distinguishing sex and gender and seems to be focused on humans. I don't see a need to get rid of the Sex and gender distinction article because we have a Gender article and a Sex article. The Sex and gender distinction article is its own topic and is specifically about distinguishing between sociological gender, psychological gender and biological sex. It is neither the Gender page nor the Sex page. The Gender article and Sex and gender distinction article are also mostly about humans because gender is mostly a human topic and distinguishing between sex and gender is a human topic. The Sex article, however, is not mostly about humans. Also, I'm not sure why you oppose this article being moved to "Biological sex," but this isn't a move discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Firstly - i said that i strongly support suggestion to move to Biological sex page. But i think that if the first sentences were sorted, the page could stay with some tlc - it's a less clumsy title and there is only biological sex so why name it as such ? Whatever - the focus of this page is that of sexual reproduction which is a bit off key as there is already that page. i think the page if kept could benefit from additional material for example on Sexing which is quite pertinent. think i thought that if the page Gender exists it ought to follow that a page Sex exists. As for the stance against the use of defined as - if there is more than one way of defining a subject - then there are differing definitions - one not necessarily discounting the other.--Iztwoz (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about misreading your "strongly agree with the suggestion to move the page to Biological sex" commentary. As for including more than one definition, that can and often is done without "defined as" terminology. Often, we simply begin with the most common definition and then move into other definitions. But for the lead sentence, unless the article is about a word, we try to stay away from "is a term for" and "is defined as" wording or similar. Per what I stated below, this isn't a general sex article, though, and a general sex article would not work. We obviously can and should include more than one aspect of sex in terms of biology and physiology in this article. The article does that, but it can obviously use more. A significant portion of the page is about sexual reproduction, but that isn't surprising to me, given the sources on biological sex. Per the sources, it makes sense that there would be a Sexual reproduction section, a Sex determination section and a Sexual dimorphism section. But, yeah, some of the sexual reproduction stuff and other stuff can be validly cut. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

On a side note: As for why name it "Biological sex," it's per what Doc James argued below. "Sex" has different meanings and most people who click on "sex" (unless clicking on it via text that is about biological sex) or type "sex" in the search bar, very likely are not looking for biological sex material. That stated, we do have the disambiguation note at the top of the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Option 3 - alternative - The sex of an organism - either male or female is determined by the physiology of its sex organs. The sex organs are usually determined genetically but in some organisms they can be transformed before birth, to suit environmental changes, or even after birth to suit mate availability.--Iztwoz (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Should we move your second suggestion to the Discussion section, as to avoid any possible voting confusion? As for your suggestion, the "either male or female" and "sex organ" parts don't accurately reflect the topic as a whole. There are also hermaphroditic organisms and intersex people. And there are fungi and bacteria aspects. See what FourViolas argued below, and the source FourViolas used for the article. Just noting the "male" and "female" aspect, without a focus on sex organs, for the first sentence is enough. After that, we can go into the other stuff. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Option 1 and I agree with Doc James that this should be moved to biological sex. AIRcorn (talk) 04:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Option 3, essentially a modified Option 1. Something along the lines of "Organisms of many species are specialized into reproductive varieties, each known as a sex." I think that makes more sense than specifying male/female, especially since the article quickly delves into hermaphroditic and other varieties, for instance fungi as FourViolas mentioned in the discussion section.
• Option 1 or 2 L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
• Option 1 the distinction between biological sex and sociological gender is better covered in general than in the past. A rename would be fine. Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Some sources defining and/or talking about sex in relation to the aspects of this article.

This Merriam-Webster source states, "either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures. 2 : the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females." This OxfordDictionaries.com source states, "Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions." This 1986 "Biology: A Modern Introduction" source, from Oxford University Press, page 166, states, "In most species there is a clear difference between the male and female organisms, and between the gametes which they produce. Where this is so the female produces gametes which are larger than the male's. The female gamete is larger because it contains stored food in its cytoplasm. This food is used to nourish the embryo which develops from the zygote." This 2000 "Life: The Science of Biology" source, from Macmillan, page 736, states, "A single body can function as both male and female. Sexual reproduction requires both male and female haploid gametes. In most species, these gametes are produced by individuals that are either male or female. Species that have male and female members are called dioecious (from the Greek for 'two houses'). In some species, a single individual may possess both female and male reproductive systems. Such species are called monoecious ("one house") or hermaphroditic." This 2006 "Plant Cell Biology" source, from Science Publishers, page 229, states, "In anisogamy, the thick cell wall of the female gamete is completed after fertilization and protects the zygote during the period of dormancy. The storage materials are used before the zygote undergoes meiosis and produces haploid cells of a new generation. At this level of sexual reproduction, the difference between male and female organisms is already discernible and during the following processes of evolution leads to a great specialization in the male and female roles." This 2011 Concise Oxford English Dictionary: Book & CD-ROM Set" source, from Oxford University Press, page 1320, states, "Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions. The fact of belonging to one of these categories. The group of all members of either sex." This 2014 "Dictionary of Biology" source, from Routledge, page 112, states, "In most higher organisms, gametes are usually regarded as being either male or female." This 2015 "The Evolution of Life" source, from Oxford University Press, page 413, states, "To understand the biological nature of gender, it is useful to forget about animals and plants to begin with and think instead of a unicellular eukaryote that may develop either was a vegetative spore or as a sexual gamete. As a gamete it will fuse with any sexually compatible partner. In this case, gender is clearly an attribute of the individual cell. If the gamete has been produced by a multicellular organism such as a seaweed then nothing changes; it will still fuse only with some other compatible gamete, regardless of the form of its parent. Hence, "gender" is an attribute of gametes, not of the cells that give rise to them. (It is, of course, a rather unusual attribute because it can be defined only relative to other gametes of different gender.) [...] Ciliate protozoans can have a dozen or so genders and some fungi have hundreds. Animals have just two: small motile male gametes, the spermatoza, and much larger non-motile female gametes, the ova."

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

EncycloPetey and Pagliaccious, why do we need a general sex article covering everything seen at Sex (disambiguation), when we already have the Sexual intercourse, Human sexual activity, Human sexuality, Non-penetrative sex, Animal sexual behaviour, Non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals, Sexual reproduction, Gender, Mating, Mating type, Human mating strategies, Sexing, Genetic recombination, and Sex drive articles? How would a general sex article help anyone at all? It would be nothing but a WP:Content fork of articles. A mess of disorganization with the article not clear on what it's about. Apparently, it would be about everything that is "sex." And if that is the case, get ready for even more content to be stuck in it, including human sexual response cycle and sex life material. It would be like a lengthier version of the disambiguation page, where readers and editors are already directed to get to the page they are looking for. And the article would be more human-centric than ever. The vast majority of our sexual content on Wikipedia is about humans. I should know; I work on many sexual topics. This article is actually one of the least human-centric. All of the content in this article now would be moved to a Biological sex or Anatomical sex title. So this article would continue to exist, but under a different name and we would have a useless general Sex article in addition to it. I mean, what point would there be for anyone to link to this article in that case? Just like with a disambiguation page, people would link here and then realize that it's not what they meant link to and then use a more specific link.

FourViolas is on a better track, but that suggested lead sentence still suggests that this is the Sexual reproduction article. There is no MOS:BOLD (not that there always has to be) unless we bold "sexes." And "common sexes include male, female, and hermaphrodite" is misleading because it suggests many other sexes. What many other sexes? Furthermore, "hermaphrodite" and "intersex" are usually not considered distinct sexes.

Good to see Chiswick Chap here. He does good biology work, and significantly fixed up the Homology (biology) article.

Nigelj, you worked on the lead before. Any thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, isn't the article already an extended disambiguation page? A majority of the sections of the article redirect to other articles, and the article already covers sexual reproduction and sex determination. The lead should refer to the article, and even if biological and anatomical sex redirects here that does not mean that the article only covers that topic. Maybe we should scrap most of the reproduction section and rename the article to biological sex before changing the lead? Pagliaccious (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Pagliaccious, no, it's not. It's exactly about what the lead states -- male, female, hermaphroditic, and sexual reproduction. Per the sources I listed above, it's about all of the things that make up the topic. What you are describing is a topic having multiple sections and the use of WP:Summary style, which is typical article style. The article is not about everything that might be the termed "sex," which is what it would be about if we were to go with your suggestion. As for renaming the article Biological sex, that was suggested before, but editors were against it; see Talk:Sex/Archive 5#Sex, facing ambiguity. You can see votes below all of the discussion. On a side note: No need to ping me to this page since it's on my watchlist. I won't ping you either if you don't want. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

And this is where we fundamentally disagree. I do not see the article as about "male, female, hermaphroditic, and sexual reproduction", rather it has undergone much change over time, and while this has increased the animal-centric focus that it currently displays, this has never been the intention of the general article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It's what the article and the literature shows. And I fail to see how you think making this article a mess of everything sex will improve it and/or give more attention to plants and fungi. They have enough attention in the article. And while most plants are hermaphroditic, some are not; the article is clear about that. Even Evercat, in the #WP:Undue intersex material in the lead section above, stated, "far more generally relevant is male/female/hermaphrodite." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, neither the article nor "the literature" support your claim, as the article has become very animal-biased over the years and "the literature" is your selection of quotes from a non-representative sample with statistical bias. Also, "hermaphroditic" is a term not normally applied to plants because it fails to describe the situation properly. E.g. All ferns (10,000 species) are neither male, nor female, nor hermaphrodites. Rather, they produce spores, and the spores produce tiny gametophyte plants that may be "male", "female", "hermaphrodites", but it is the following generation produced by these tiny plants which gives rise to another fern. By homology, the same is true of all land plants, so describing a tree as "male" or "female", etc. refers to the tiny gametophytes they bear, as it is only the gametophytes that are capable of producing egg and sperm cells, not the trees themselves. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The literature supports my claim. Anyone is free to review it themselves. And the article does as well. I already replied to you above about your criticism of the selection of sources and selection of quotes I used. You state "the article has become very animal-biased over the years," and yet you also state that the article doesn't support my claims. Huh? Which is it? Also, as seen by this link of the article in 2007, the article has been animal-focused for a long time. There were even social aspects in the article back then. And the lead back then began by stating, "Sex refers to the male and female duality of biology and reproduction. Unlike organisms that only have the ability to reproduce asexually, many species have the ability to produce offspring through meiosis and fertilization. Often, individuals of the two sexes attract one another and communicate their readiness to procreate through biological changes, or, in social species, through courtship behaviours." Over the years, the article expanded to include plant and fungi material. As for your statement that "hermaphroditic" is a term not normally applied to plants, many reliable sources state that most plants are hermaphroditic; I'm not stating anything that many reliable sources do not. And your "rather, they produce spores, and the spores produce tiny gametophyte plants that may be 'male', 'female', 'hermaphrodites'" argument only lends support to first defining this article with "male and female" terminology or with "male" "female" and "hermaphroditic" terminology. And then expanding on matters after that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The "male/female/both" set of sexes only applies to anisogamous species, which include most animals and plants (although in plants, there are more complicated conditions: monoecy vs. dioecy, unisexual sporophytes alternating with disexual gametophytes, etc). Isogamous species, like most sexual fungi as well as some green algae, aren't called "male" and "female" because neither gamete is larger than the other; their sexes are "+" and "-", or labeled with letters and numbers if there are more than 2 mating types with different compatibilities (and there can be hundreds). FourViolas (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

FourViolas, thanks for responding. This will be my last time pinging you to the discussion because I assume you will check back here if you want to read replies or reply. There are no other mentioned sexes in the sources. At least I don't think that there are. What sources use terms other than "male," "female," "hermaphroditic" or even "unisexual" when referring to the sexes of species? Listing them here can help. But, regardless, my point is that "sex" (when not speaking of sexual intercourse/sexual activity or sociological gender) is usually first defined and described in terms of "male" and "female," especially in the case of sexual reproduction, and then hermaphroditic, intersex and other cases after that. And when it comes to the usual, the sources I listed above are a reflection of what is usually stated. We should be giving due weight to the most common definition/categories first and then going into other definitions/categories after that. "Sex" and "sexual reproduction" topics mainly cover male and female varieties. This is even clear from the Sexual reproduction article. Look at the sources in that article. Even look at the sources in this article. It's common for Wikipedia to go with the most common definition and/or aspects for the lead sentence and then to elaborate after that. And that is what this article did without incident, before "intersex" was added to the first sentence and then we wound up here sometime later. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I do see that you added this source, which talks about more than male and female varieties when speaking of fungi. But even that source notes that the structures are often referred to as male and female structures, although the source disagrees with those designations in certain cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• IMO common usage of "sex" is "sexual intercourse". I would thus move the current text to "sex (biology)" and than redirect sex to sexual intercourse. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Doc James, yeah, moving the article has been discussed before. I pointed to the Talk:Sex/Archive 5#Sex, facing ambiguity discussion above. I would be fine with the article being titled "Biological sex." I don't see a need for the "Sex (biology)" disambiguated title, though. I'm not fond of having a Wikipedia article simply being titled "Sex" since "sex" has so many different meanings, but all of the other definitions of sex already have their own Wikipedia articles. So having this article simply titled "Sex" hasn't proved to be much of a problem. I'm not sure that I would redirect "sex" to the Sexual intercourse article, though, since although that article does cover different forms of sexual activity, it's not as general as the Sexual activity article and the term "sex" is so broad. I think that the term "sex" would work best as a disambiguation page. Anyway on the topic at hand, which concerns the lead sentence of this article, do you have any opinion on that? And if so, would you consider voting above? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes moving the article to "biological sex" and having "sex" go to the disambig would cause less surprise IMO and I would be happy with that proposal.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't currently have the opportunity to get into this topic (only here for the RFC) but already it seems to me that what the article needs is not a better lede (though it could do with one) but better integration with all the several articles on the various aspects of the topic. A lot of the terminology and topics seem better suited to other articles. JonRichfield (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I think you have identified the biggest problem: Editors don't have a shared understanding of what this article is supposed to be about. We seem to have people supporting or opposing options for the lead based on whatever their first thought is when they hear the word sex, rather than ignoring the current title, figuring out what the scope of the article is, and then deciding what a reasonable definition/description of the article's scope is (and maybe later making the title match the scope, if such a change is deemed necessary). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Going by most of the comments in the Survey section thus far, most people are ignoring the current title and focusing on the scope of the article and the lead sentence and/or lead as a whole reflecting that. Otherwise, I'm certain that most or all would be arguing similar to Doc James. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I've just been looking at the page history and it seems to me that until 17th February the intro sentences were long standing and OK - then the lead sent the focus to Sexual reproduction and hence this whole discussion. Why wasn't the lead simply restored? --Iztwoz (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

It was, but I was reverted. Didn't you see from the edit history? See the #WP:Undue intersex material in the lead section above. Also, regarding this dispute, the lead was first changed on February 14, 2018. The intersex stuff wasn't as long-standing, though. I knew that an RfC would be needed for further input because the editor who reverted me has had the passionate viewpoint you see on this talk page for years and would likely revert me again if I restored the previous lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

____

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.