Talk:Sex

Adding fact that sex is a spectrum

As far as I am aware, general science is already acknowledging the fact that sex is indeed a spectrum, thus not just "male and female varieties" (and is also still upholding the outdated binary concept of sex). I wonder why nothing of this is mentioned at all in the first section at the very start of the page. I would even say following quote is wrong:

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

It would be more fair to say something like this: The biological sex of many organisms is on a spectrum which is often distributed in extremes that we call male or female. In rare cases, however, intersexuality can occur on the spectrum. --AloisIrlmaier (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

That may go a little too far, since this is part of an introductory segment that needs to be simple and clear. Any nuance and details should normally be added in additional sections and/or articles. However, something certainly needs to happen, as someone I know online has made me aware of the fact that certain phrasings are currently misused by transphobic trolls. This goes especially for the phrasing "The gametes produced by an organism define its sex: males produce small gametes [...] while females produce large gametes..." This implies (or can be misunderstood to mean) that an organism's sex is basically binary, whereas we nowadays know better. The source for this phrase seems to be Purves, however, nowhere in this textbook have I been able to find that particular definition. So, to be a little more clear, I propose we change this sentence to something like this:

By convention, sex is divided into male and female depending on the type of gametes produced by an organism: Small and highly motile gametes (e.g. spermatozoa) are normally designated as 'male', while large and less motile gametes (ova or egg cells) as 'female'. By extension, an organism producing either of each type of gamete is normally designated accordingly, and nominally 'female' organisms generally receive 'male' gametes during conception. However, there are many instances where this is less clear-cut as e.g. in isogamous organisms, hermaphroditic animals or non-binary humans. 

Is that better? Amphioxys (talk) 09:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I've integrated a slightly different phrasing of the above into the article, and added some other phrases, explaining more clearly that sex determination is complex and generally forms a bimodal spectrum. As it stands, the first sentence of this article is locked and should not be altered unless there is a new consensus following more discussion. I should underline that 'male' and 'female' sex are the fundamental sexual varieties that, nevertheless, create the spectrum of sex expression in individual organisms, including humans. I hope it becomes clear from the new phrasings that the division into male/female is by convention and for convenience. We tend to regard motile, proactive gametes as 'male' and stationary, receptive gametes as 'female', although these are no Platonic ideals. There are organisms that are isogamous, but for those "sex" is not relevant. With anisogamy, either one type of gametes is mostly proactive and the other one is mostly passive, hence the twofold distinction; There is no spectrum of gametes in that sense. However, for individuals, "sex" is determined by a number of factors: Chromosomes, individual genes, hormones, cells, timing, environment etc. and this is what creates the non-binary spectrum of sex expression. I hope that clears things up. Amphioxys (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I reverted this because the lead, per WP:Lead, is meant to summarize the article, not go into extensive detail. I also reverted because this is a biological/anatomy article and not a gender article; so non-binary gender identity is outside the scope of this article. That is, unless a "Society and culture" section is created and it talks about the societal/political issues. In a recent Village pump discussion, editors discussed not lending undue weight to gender identity in anatomy articles and inappropriately inserting such material into those articles. We shouldn't use Wikipedia to try to fight transphobia. There are always going to be people who assert that trans women aren't women because they are XY, and that trans men aren't men because they are XX (regardless that chromosome variation exists among transgender people).

As for AloisIrlmaier's statement about the lead sentence, the lead is the way it is after this extensive 2018 discussion. It's also following what the sources state. What reliable, academic sources define sex as "many organisms [being] on a spectrum which is often distributed in extremes that we call male or female."? Furthermore, the sexes are divided into male and female varieties. AloisIrlmaier mentions "In rare cases, however, intersexuality can occur on the spectrum." Well, "rare" is the keyword. And as is clear from the Intersex article, intersex people are also divided into male and female varieties. We also already mention intersex people in the lead. We also mention the hermaphrodite aspect in the lead. We also mention "Fungi may also have more complex allelic mating systems, with sexes not accurately described as male, female, or hermaphroditic." in the lead. So the lead does what it's supposed to do without giving undue weight to certain aspects. Also, intersex is typically reserved for humans (as is clear by the Intersex article). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, a non-binary gender identity is not about sex determination (meaning the sex-determination system/the topic of physical sexual differentiation in humans); so stating "because an individual's sex-determination is dependent on many factors other than chromosomal sex, humans may also be intersex or non-binary" is off with regard to the non-binary mention. And the source that was used for that material doesn't use such wording either. That stated, I do see that sex determination is a disambiguation page. So what sense was "sex determination" being used? Whatever the case, the usual meaning of sex determination is clear by the Sex-determination system article. And we shouldn't use WP:Scare quotes or things that resemble them. And stating "which is presumably the primitive condition" is WP:Editorializing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Flyer is correct. First, the lead needs to be a summary of the article without excessive detail. Second, Wikipedia follows reliable sources and introduced wording such as "Conventionally, designation of either male or female sex depends on..." sounds too much like righting great wrongs rather than the fact of how sex is defined by sources. Johnuniq (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Flyer's right on this. The lead's job is just to summarize the rest of the article in simple outline; it's not there to make mighty social or political points. As for the article, its job is to state the reliably-sourced facts simply, plainly, and neutrally. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I fully understand the point that the lead should be clear and concise, and I agree we should avoid over-complicating definitions. I also apologize if I may have been conflating terms. On the other hand, completely reverting a carefully worded edit supported by credible sources is perhaps a bit heavy-handed, unless the idea is to discuss the merits of any new formulations first, before trying to integrate it in the article. My contention is that some of the present wordings give rise to confusion and mis-use all to easily and thus lend undue weight to a science-denialist position, in contrast with a well-established scientific state of affairs. I will give this some more thought and get back. Amphioxys (talk) 11:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Weighing in here as author of some of the modified content and as a someone that now identifies as non-binary and on HRT (🎉).

1. I think it is correct to modify the first sentence in the lead to soften it. I think "In general," would be good. To me, "conventionally" has a subtext of referring to conventions as questionable things – I think best to avoid misreading any sense that questions are being raised about physiological truths. But...

2. Yes, the article has been about sex-as-gender, and it avoided gender-as-social-construct. But biologically, sex-as-gender also refers to a constellation of physiological traits associated with a particular gamete-producing individual. The second paragraph seems to be a start on this, and might be enriched. Intersex is not a phenomenon limited to humans (despite the focus of that WP article). But in humans, "intersex" doesn't typically refer to intersex physiology by choice (c.f. yours truly), so I think it's worth including the word "non-binary" alongside "intersex" for that reason, i.e. not as an intent to expand to gender-as-social-construct but as a linguistic issue due to the limited use of "intersex".

Specifically, to respond to Flyer22 Reborn: "because an individual's sex-determination is dependent on many factors other than chromosomal sex, humans may also be intersex or non-binary" is off with regard to the non-binary mention – I personally consider myself to now be physiologically intersex, but that word isn't used to refer to people like me who do so actively, not congenitally.

3. I think the expansion to the third paragraph would be better made in a second paragraph that enriches the observation that sex-as-gender goes beyond gametes to recognize the other physiological aspects.

4. Actually, I think going into sex determination systems (third paragraph) does not belong in the lead, if we're dissecting lead content! When I gave the page an overhaul in 2008 and added that content, I put it in a "Genetics" section.

5. In contrast, the lead doesn't cover sex-as-a-behavior, because the article is generally missing it. I think this is partly mea culpa: the article should do more here, and I think I was too shy/young to feel confident writing much about that in 2008. This was a point of contention in the discussion Flyer22 Reborn linked, but I don't think the article needs to be moved...

5. Really, I think the whole thing deserves an overhaul. In the coming year, I would like to improve this article and submit it for peer review via the WikiJournal of Science, where I recently joined the editorial board (and a thank you to Chiswick Chap for supporting my application!). I appreciate how challenging it is to span the many facets this article might cover, but it gets a lot of pageviews & I'd like to see it get FA status. Amphioxys, User:Flyer22 Reborn and others, please let me know if you're interested in being coauthors.

-- Mad Price Ball ✉ ✍ 20:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)