Jump to content

Talk:Male/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Encyclopedia:Male

First listed in most wanted stubs, this article's scope is not wide enough. See "What links here" :

  • Andre Agassi
  • Abortion
  • Talk:Abortion
  • Andrew
  • Body
  • Bee
  • Carolus Linnaeus
  • Clitoris
  • Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen
  • Discordianism
  • Dog
  • Distributism
  • Endocrine system
  • Frodo Baggins
  • Fallacies of definition
  • Female
  • Faramir
  • First-person shooter
  • Gamete
  • Grammatical gender
  • Horse breeding
  • Heterosexuality
  • John
  • Man
  • Male (disambiguation)
  • Medicine man
  • Neo-druidism
  • Naked News
  • Orgasm
  • Pregnancy (mammals)
  • Postmodernism
  • Pope John XXIII
  • Paul
  • Patrilineality
  • Biological reproduction
  • Sex
  • Doctor (Star Trek)
  • Worf
  • Odo
  • Chakotay
  • Tom Paris
  • Leonard McCoy
  • Geordi La Forge
  • Spermatozoon
  • Squirrel
  • Sex symbol
  • Talk:Sex
  • Secondary sex characteristic
  • Semen
  • Scorpion

(1050 links ; also, I can't tell the order those links are listed with).

May I suggest a "See also" section to the most prominent subjects ? --DLL 10:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'm being dense today, but I don't really understand what you're asking for. Could you be more explicit?--Curtis Clark 17:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
And I must have missed sth, sorry. Such an article could become a kinda portal, if you take note that it has got nearly one thousand links. A stub, even enriched to an average article size, should not be enough : there must be communication between subjects, e;g., as sex, artists, specific religion rites and animals link here, the "see also" section must exist and link back to such articles and/or categories. That's encyclopedic. Thank you for your advice and help. --DLL 21:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
What would be the criteria for including an article in "see also"? I could understand semen or spermatozoon, but I think I'd draw the line at Geordi La Forge or First-person shooter.--Curtis Clark 23:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I find this paragraph extremely weird: "Human males are called men (singular man). In humans, there are several different components (in addition to genetics) to assigning biological sex and gender identity such as "male". Most men have XY chromosomes, with XXY and XYY each occurring in about one in a thousand male births."

What are the "different components" that determine biological sex in human males? Are those components also present in other apes, mammals, vertebrates?

Also is the concept of "Gender identity" relevant at all in a biological article? It is after all a sociological term. The sociological implications of the term "male" are already addressed in the article Man as it is indeed noted in Male (disambiguation)

I think the error in the paragraph is that it conflates "gender identity" with biological sex when it is extremely clear that they are different things.

To finish, are there any particularly notable differences between sex differentiation in human males and other mammals to make a special reference to human males needed in this article? If there are what are they? Notice the mammalian system of sex differentiation is already mentioned in the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.36.158.120 (talk • contribs) .

The above comment has been posted without any response for a few days. I will wait for a few more days and in case nobody answers or otherwise argue against it I will delete the above mentioned paragraph from the article as I feel its inclusion is unjustified. I do not relish the prospect of doing this unilaterally so any comment for or against are encouraged and will be welcomed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.36.158.120 (talk • contribs) .

Although I agree with you, an unsigned comment by an anon doesn't have as much weight as a signed comment by a registered user (sorry, but that's just the way it is). If you delete it, be sure to write an edit summary so it won't be reverted as vandalism.--Curtis Clark 04:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I will not delete it until I have given everybody a chance to comment on the proposed change. So far it seems two persons agree and nobody has said anything against it. I will still wait some more time and follow your suggestion in case I finally do the edit.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.36.158.120 (talk • contribs) .


After a week without anyone making any comment for or against, and with the present count of two people agreeing and none objecting I have decided to go ahead with the edit. To anyone wishing to revert it I would beg to come here to discuss before taking any action. 80.36.158.120 22:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"Sexual identities" template

I think this is extraordinarily POV for an article about males among all organisms, since it is clearly meant to be about humans only (although parts of it are perhaps applicable to other mammals). If it were an article on sexual identity, I'd have no objection at all, but the template dominates Male by its size, and makes the article even more human-centric.--Curtis Clark 04:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

males by itz size, human-centric?? im confused and angry!Qrc2006 23:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's analyze it:
  • Sexual orientations—Although this part is primarily about humans ("anthrosexuality" even presupposes it in its etymology), sexual relationships between members of the same sex are not all that uncommon in social mammals and birds. Whether it is biologically equivalent to human homosexuality has not been firmly established, though, and mammals and birds make up a small fraction of organisms with sexes (any random male or female is statistically most likely to be a beetle). This part also leaves out bestiality, which is seen by many as an "aberration" among humans, but which is much more common among closely related species in other groups (we killed off all our close relatives), especially in plants. And although many organisms are strange and unusual, none are "queer" in the same sexual-political sense as humans.
  • Sexes—The sex chromosome configurations given are primarily mammalian, and some are not well-attested except in humans:
    • Female (xo)—X0 fruit flies are male
    • Female (xx)—The xx/xy system is found only in therian mammals, if I'm not mistaken.
    • Female (xxx)—I think this syndrome has only been reported in humans, although it may occur in other mammals.
    • Female (xy)—I think this syndrome has only been reported in humans, although it may occur in other mammals.
    • Male (xx)—This is a very interesting syndrome that should be linked from Sex-determination systems, but again is substantiated in humans only.
    • Male (xxy)—I think this syndrome has only been reported in humans, although it may occur in other mammals.
    • Male (xy)—Again, therian mammals.
    • Male (xyy)—I think this syndrome has only been reported in humans, although it may occur in other mammals.
    • Man—"A man is a male human."
    • Intersexuality/Intersex, Intersex (xo/xy)—Hermaphroditism is unusual in vertebrates, but common in many other organisms.
    • Woman—"A woman is a female human."
  • Gender—These terms (not including, of course, grammatical gender) apply specifically to humans.
  • Other—It's hard to imagine "Swinger" or "Womyn" applied except to humans.

This is an article about all males, in the biological sense. I would hate to need a separate Male (biology) to encompass that.--Curtis Clark 00:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Electronics

Why isn't there mention that device connectors (that plug into sockets) are referrred to as 'male', and the receptacles are labelled 'female'? Mr.bonus 23:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

lol, what?

Great Article!

I just read the first part about biology. But, as far as I got, it is one of the best Wikipedia articles I've read. I did some light editing to clean up some typos and very minor stylistic errors. I need to go to sleep, so I didn't finish. Fabulous! Eperotao 06:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits!--Curtis Clark 04:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"Overside and Overgrown?"

Anyone have any idea what this means? I haven't encountered "overside" in a single biology course or book, and I doubt whether it's even a real word. "Overgrown" doesn't really fit either. I'm taking the liberty of making sense out of this intro. Thefleck 09:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Etymology?

does anyone know where this word came from? Gailim 05:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do males exist?

Has anybody read Why males exist: An inquiry into the evolution of sex? Author:Fred Hapgood PUBLISHER: Morrow (New York) YEAR: 1979 PUB TYPE: Book (ISBN 0688035469 ) --Pawyilee (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Male is a gender

On some health and science websites it says that gender refers to anatomical and social differences as well and that in gender studies gender refers to the anatomical structures such as male penis, testicles, beard, deeper voice, testosterone and females with vagina, vulva, breasts, cervix and also the social culture such as a headscarf for Muslim women, so Gender studies professors deal with anatomy of gender as well as sociology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.163.41 (talk • contribs)

IP, while the terms sex and gender are commonly used interchangeably, I've already pointed you to why your interpretation of gender is wrong. You confuse sex and gender, making it seem like the term sex only applies to sexual activity and that gender is the term to use to cover the biology aspects. In actuality, it is the term sex that is more so biological. The term gender is more so sociological. Read the Gender article, the Sex and gender distinction article, and read their references (the ones accessible to you). Flyer22 (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Mars symbol origin

The article estates that the symbol doesn't come from a stylized spear and shield, but from the Greek name of the planet. I've never heard about that, all other resources point to the spear and shield theory, including Wikipedia's article on Astronomical symbols. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Astronomical_symbols#Symbols_for_the_planets. Is the letter hypothesis accepted? I couldn't find the greek names of the other planets, and the proposed letters don't really look like the mars symbol at all. On the other hand, other symbols (like Jupiter's) don't look like anything (despite people commonly saying it looks like a lightning bolt or an eagle), so it would be interesting if the other planetary symbols fit with the stylized letter theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.183.13.9 (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Images biased?

Just curious why the images for a male and female human have the poses different.

The male is in a good position that clearly looks like they are holding a position to be able to see the body. The female is an ambiguous position that suggests other motives and lacks the professionalism of a pose similar to the male. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.53.21 (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

103.104.61.104 (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 22:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I think these sources might come in handy for both articles on male and female

https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Book%3A_Biofundamentals_(Klymkowsky_and_Cooper)/04%3A_Social_evolution_and_sexual_selection/4.09%3A_Sexual_dimorphism

https://www.britannica.com/science/sex

https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/sex

https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/male

https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/female — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 17:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

When page issues be removed

“ This article needs additional citations for verification.”

What else does this article need?

I scrolled through many sources and it seems like this article has almost everything. CycoMa (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2021

I want to edit the picture 118.172.203.103 (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

What’s wrong with picture? CycoMa (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Vague requests to add, update, modify, or improve an image are generally not honored unless you can point to a specific image already uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons that you would like included on this article. Please note that any image used on any Wikipedia article must comply with the Wikipedia image use policy, particularly where copyright is concerned. Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Needs fixing

I may have made some mistakes. I’m probably gonna go through this article and the article on female because the sources I added aren’t the best in the world.

They aren’t the worst sources it’s just I know there are better ones out there. CycoMa (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Articles need fixing

I’m gonna go through male and female article and fix some things up. To make things a little better and make statements align more with the sources. CycoMa (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2021

Says “Most” males have a Y chromosome, this is scientifically incorrect. All males have a Y chromosome. 192.38.130.252 (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that statement? Plantsurfer 12:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Plantsurfer, Females have two X chromosomes in their cells, while males have X and Y chromosomes in their cells. and Each person normally has one pair of sex chromosomes in each cell. The Y chromosome is present in males, who have one X and one Y chromosome, while females have two X chromosomes. which are the two references used for the statement. We should probably also cite an example of a male mammal with no Y chromosome to clarify that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Your assertions seem to have a very narrow focus and don't appear to cover the situation in birds, reptiles and insects, to name just a few groups. The statement remains incorrect. Plantsurfer 18:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Plantsurfer, The article specifies mammals. Most male mammals, including male humans, have a Y chromosome ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: The statement is correct, just needs further sourcing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Male as the first sex

Crossroads I noticed you reverted my edit. The individuals I cited is from two well known biologists and the source I used is from oxford. So it’s reliable. Should I quote what the source says so we can reach an agree on what to put in the article?CycoMa (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

First off you need to rewrite it so it is more clear and grammatically correct. I see no reason to quote the bit about the Bible; it's obviously said more or less in jestor as a sociocultural reference (the Bible only says that in reference to creation of humans out of the dust of the earth; it has nothing to do with evolution). It does not help readers understand the topic scientifically. Crossroads -talk- 04:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Okay here’s what the source said. In animals and plants, there is a division of labour between a motile gamete and a gamete carrying the food stores needed for the development of a large adult. There are mathematical models showing the circumstances in which such a division of labour would pay: they confirm that adult size is a crucial variable favouring anisogamy. There is again some support for the theory by comparing related isogamous and anisogamous species. Volvox is a genus of green algae, related to Chlamydomonas, but forming multicellular colonies-hollow spheres of green ciliated cells. In species with small colonies, the gametes are all motile and all the same size. In colonies of intermediate size, the gametes are again motile but of varying size. In species with the largest colonies, there are large non-motile gametes and small motile ones. In Volvox, we can see on a small insid scale the evolutionary path once travelled by the ancestors of the animals and plants. It is interesting that the Bible gets it right. Males were the first sex: females were secondary.
Also your comment about the Bible. I’m not a biblical scholar but, Eve was literally born from the rib of Adam. So yes the Bible is saying female evolved from male.(not Darwinian evolution to say)CycoMa (talk) 04:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I temporarily removed it. To see how we can collaborate on this. I already had like 3 admins have their eyes on user page this month I better try and collaborate better.CycoMa (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for self-reverting it out for now. "motile in both isogamous or anisogamous species" is confusing and doesn't seem to accurately summarize the text. As for the Bible, yes, but it says Adam came from the dust of the earth and Eve was a creation (not evolution) from Adam's rib. I don't think that comparison will be helpful in the article. Crossroads -talk- 04:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
This isn’t the only mention of the evolution of male and female with the creation of Adam and Eve tho. [This source] says According to scientists, the very first organisms to dare engage in sex were more like Adam and Steve than Adam and Eve.
Like I think you are taking what these sources are saying too literally. Them using Adam and evolve or the Bible being about the origin of male and female is merely a way to help everyday people understand it better.CycoMa (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
But, anyway I think such a statement is a important statement to have in here. To give reads an idea on how males and females evolved.CycoMa (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Crossroads you don’t have to join the discussion or anything but, what do you say to things I have stated? Are you still up for the mention or not. Your responses don’t have to be long or anything, I just don’t want to come off as edit warring here.CycoMa (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I understand the statement you made about it being confusing. But, what do you think about mentioning that only detail about male being first sex?(obviously they don’t mean females evolved from males literally.)CycoMa (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Actually you know what me saying that aren’t literally saying male is the first sex probably isn’t ideal for a science article or Wikipedia for that matter. It’s probably one of those things a person who’s interested in the topic will find on their own.CycoMa (talk) 06:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Not sure, what exactly is your proposal now? Crossroads -talk- 21:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Crossroads do you think a comment like “the Bible was right, male was the first sex.” Even tho the writer didn't mean that literally is appropriate for an article like this? Because when I think about it I’m not sure including statements like that are appropriate for an article like this.CycoMa (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
It's not per above. Crossroads -talk- 22:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Alright.CycoMa (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Not helping the article.
Crossroads also if you aren’t okay with the change I made don’t be afraid to remove it.CycoMa (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
You gotta copyedit that way more. It has errors as is. Also, this comment I am replying to should have had :: in front of it since it is a reply to me and that is proper threading. Crossroads -talk- 04:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Crossroads it’s like this because I didn’t expect you to comment so quickly.CycoMa (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Definition of male

See Talk:Woman#Definition_of_a_woman for question about how to define woman, man, female and male. --MGA73 (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Secondary sex characteristics

A sentence "Most males are larger than their female counterparts and are typically more aggressive" is true only in mammals, but not in all animals--Aspilemetala (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Article scope

@CaptainEek: The lead section of an article is supposed to reflect its body. Currently the bodies of the articles male and female are almost entirely about biology, and say almost nothing about gender or even humans in general. Since the articles are about sex, not gender, I feel that it's best to explicitly restrict their scope to the field of biology.

If we don't do this, and pretend that the articles male and female are also about gender, then we conflate sex and gender. This is also why I removed the links from the lead sentences of the articles man and woman. The words "male" and "female" refer to gender in those, yet they point to articles that are primarily about sex in biology. PBZE (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Well the male and female articles mention gender because the societal usage is somewhat interchangeable. While I agree that it conflates sex and gender, and that the definitions are a bit busted, that's a society problem not a Wikipedia problem. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@CaptainEek: Most of society also doesn't understand what Power (physics) is and how it differs from Energy, but that doesn't stop us from having an article dedicated to it. The point is that there exist reliable sources in which male and female have a distinct, specialized meaning in biology, and barely cover anything about gender or humans in general. There exist other reliable sources that talk about gender, which understand that it's not the same as sex. In general, reliable sources understand that these terms have related, but different, meanings in different contexts and avoid mixing them up. So we have separate articles for male, man, male plant, male connector, masculine gender, masculinity, etc. The misconceptions held by the general public shouldn't influence what's on Wikipedia.
If people were to add to Power (physics) that "Power can also refer to Power (social and political)", and then in another article say "Wealth is associated with power (physics)", that would be erroneous. The same thing applies to the man and woman articles when they link to male and female.
Maybe it would be easier to understand if the articles were renamed male (biology) and female (biology). And perhaps the article for woman would have the word "female" bolded, like "A woman is an adult female human", and same for the man article. But that's not how it's set up currently, and I don't feel like putting in the work to propose a move right now. PBZE (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I am not understanding the argument that meanings of "male" outside of biology should be excluded from this article. These meanings are as old as the word itself, are an important part of contemporary language use (viz. men who are politicians are "male politicians", not "man politicians"), and are not generally characterized by any confusion or lack of clarity on the part of those using them. Of course "male" has a specialized meaning in biology, including in human biology, but "male" in relation to humans has never been limited to this narrow, biological sense of the term. Newimpartial (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@Newimpartial: The thing is, this article is already primarily about the specialized meaning in biology, and does not cover humans in any significant way. This is reflected in both the article body and in the lead sentence. Adding a single sentence mentioning an alternative meaning doesn't do much to change that. We can either expand this article to cover all the various uses of the term "male", proportionally weighted, or we can explicitly clarify that this article only covers the biological sense of the term. I did the latter.
If we claim that this article is about both sex and gender, then we conflate the two concepts. I added the phrase "In biology, " to the lead sentence to restrict its scope, because otherwise, it falsely implies that this article's definition of "male" is broadly applicable outside of biology.
I agree that the biological meaning may not be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "male". Perhaps we should move Male (disambiguation) to Male and Male to Male (biology). PBZE (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I would support landing on the disambiguation page, except that I am not convinced that Wikipedia currently has quality targets available for the most important senses of "Male". The current content of Male (disambiguation) does not give cause for optimism, I feel. Newimpartial (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@Newimpartial: In my opinion, the only two primary topics for "male" are for sex and gender. Wikipedia does not have an article specifically about "Male (gender)", but the closest equivalent is probably "Man"; the "Gender" article currently links to the articles "Woman" and "Man". If we need a separate article about "Male (gender)" we could always create one. As long as the disambiguation page lists two articles at the top, each roughly corresponding to sex and gender respectively, it should be fine, in my opinion.
This article gives WP:UNDUE weight to sex and not gender, and it is therefore inappropriate to claim that it represents the common usage of the term "male". That's why I tried to explicitly restrict its scope to biology (and why I thought it was problematic to link "Man" to "Male" and "Woman" to "Female"). Originally I was unsure whether or not I should also try to move it, but now I am convinced that this article's non-disambiguated title of "Male" in of itself gives WP:UNDUE weight to sex and not gender. How would you feel about a move proposal for this article and the "Female" article? PBZE (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, I don't think I would oppose an RM, but I would like to have the environment (disambiguation, etc.) cleaned up a bit first. For one thing, the articles "Man" and "Woman", while they do address gender, are by no means limited to gender. And by the way, if you look into the past, I have tried to remove wikilinks myself (I believe it was the link from Woman to "Female") for the same reason you did - because the first sentence of the lead at "male" and "female" is misleading in restricting the sense of those words to their meaning in biology. However, it has proved more feasible to include the alternate senses of "female" and "male" in the lead of these articles (albeit not in the lead sentence) than it was to remove the wikilink. And the Male (disambiguation) page is a dog's breakfast - a very unlikely place to direct the reader even to the very basic point that for human beings, "Male" can refer to sex or gender. See also the archive for Talk:Sex and gender distinction for an example of how vexed the editing of these areas can be: in that instance, because there is not universal agreement about what precisely the distinction is or how it can be formulated, some editors therefore conclude that any language supporting the premise that some such distinction actually exists somehow violates NPOV, even though the only sources disputing the reality of the distinction are extremely FRINGE and typically RSOPINION pieces.
So while I would not oppose a move, I would rather have a sense of a plausible, improved end state treatment of these topics, before launching into RfCs that carry the potential to make things worse than they are at present. Newimpartial (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
This is not an appropriate change to make. While sex and gender are distinct, they are still very much related concepts. Usage in reliable sources does not justify dogmatic insistence that "man" always means a gender and nothing to do with male sex. As was said earlier, this is society's problem and not ours, and it is not our place to insist on particular definitions or right great wrongs. The current setup makes all necessary clarifications and is in accord with WP:DUE.
More specifically, when sources talk about men and women, they (as a whole) talk about both sex and gender related aspects of the topic. "Women's health", for example, has to do with needs related to pregnancy, as well as social issues. That is the sources treating these things as tightly related. The current definitions of man and woman are in accord with the vast majority of definitions used in reliable sources and experts on the English language. The articles on male and female emphasize sex because that is what most sources focused on those words talk about - sources using the gender meaning mainly talk about men and women as their actual topic and hence that material belongs in those articles. Nonetheless, these articles do acknowledge both meanings. Crossroads -talk- 01:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC) expanded Crossroads -talk- 01:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I would propose we move from a less gendered article title, something like Wolffian sex, referencing Wolffian duct, but that would be a neologism. Male is gendered, even in Spanish the word macho is gendered. — Tazuco 01:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
And male sex includes trans men, since they are FTM/transsex. — Tazuco 01:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Then what is the difference between male and female? Is a male cat that has its penis surgically removed now a female cat? 80.229.22.58 (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
(replying to your edit summary as well) I didn't say sex and gender are identical. But both carry parallelisms. And according to Anne Fausto-Sterling, sex is not binary. You can see while googling that some suggest it's a bimodal spectrum, however there's also altersex/aldernic covering possible intangible sex identities intrapersonally. Using male to describe sex is a gendered way to do so. And biological sex is not only gonadal/gonadic/genital or genotypical/genetic/chromosomal/chromosomic, there's also secondary sex characteristics that encompass phenotype, physical body, hormonal dosages, etc. In my passport I have an X in my sex, instead of an M or an F, but I'm not intersex either. It's because where I live sex is not only about biology/morphology/anatomy/corporeality, it's also a psychosocial (psychological/psychical, social, mental, intellectual, interpersonal, spiritual...) and juridical/judicial/civil phenomenon. — Tazuco 21:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
You have and are continuing to do so by trying to assert that what is written in your passport has any bearing whatsoever on your physiological state. The fact that Canada has unilaterally decided to allow legal fictions in the legal documents it issues is not an argument against a global scientific consensus on how we describe material reality. Observe the gametes possessed by mammalian lifeforms such as humans and explain to me how they are "gendered". Count them. As Philip K. Dick said: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”. Male is a term we use to describe our reality.
Further, does any scientist of similar status other than Fausto-Sterling support these claims? Can you name them? The whole reason that science works on consensus is that it is not impossible, even within learned circles, to find wild assertions. Even creationist site 'Answers in Genesis' has somehow managed to engage a number of supporters holding doctorates. 80.229.22.58 (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
IP: what do you think a passport is able to record that is not a legal fiction? Nationality, birthplace, name, date of birth, etc., etc. are all social constructs that take the form of "legal fictions", with nationality - the primordial "fact" of all modern passports - being more fictitious than any of the others. Your apparent conceit that a passport might state something that is not a "legal fiction" in your sense is EXTRAORDINARY claim, which you present here without a shred of evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
You're claiming that human sexual dimorphism is a social construct? 80.229.22.58 (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Do you have any sources that support your apparent claim that passports inscribe human sexual dimorphism, as opposed to "legal sex"? The claim seems EXTRAORDINARY. Newimpartial (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Why would I have sources for something I explicitly said was not true in my first post? Are you going to answer my question now? 80.229.22.58 (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

But passports and legal sex have a reality to them as well - even a material reality. They determine for example who can enter what jurisdiction, and what counts as a married couple. And if you don't think marriage is material, try getting divorced.

The sources on the topic of this article are not confined to reproductive biology, so neither is the article. You seem inclined to treat "social constructs" and "material reality" as mutually exclusive, but that is a demonstrably false premise. Newimpartial (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

According to this article's definition, that cat would not have a sex. The majority of this article is about the role of sex in sexual reproduction, and how sex determination works in a variety of species. But for many species, including humans, the term "sex" not only means an organism's role in sexual reproduction, but also the presence of various primary and secondary sex characteristics. The latter definition is not given in this article.
I could be wrong, but I expect that since biologists study a variety of different organisms, not all of which even have secondary sex characteristics, the term "sex" in biology in a broad sense primarily refers to sexual reproduction. Even this varies though, since the terms "male" and "female" are often used as generalizations in reference to primary and secondary sex characteristics, such as describing behavior or physical appearance, among other things. In general, "sex" has no universal, unambiguous definition in all contexts, and on Wikipedia, it's better for us to not pretend that it does. The colloquial usage of the term is a vague incoherent idea of "physical gender". PBZE (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
@PBZE: actually male and female are more about reproductive roles.
I don’t understand what makes you say this.
Even this varies though, since the terms "male" and "female" are often used as generalizations in reference to primary and secondary sex characteristics, such as describing behavior or physical appearance, among other things. In general, "sex" has no universal, unambiguous definition in all contexts, and on Wikipedia
Haven’t seen any sources refer to male or female as describing behavior and physical appearance I haven’t seen any sources that say male and female are about appearance.
Also I am not sure what makes you think the definition in the lead right now isn’t universal or unambiguous.CycoMa1 (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I could have used better phrasing. I did not say that the terms "male" and "female" are ever defined by physical appearance or behavior. But the terms are often used in order to describe those things, even though they are only indirectly related to sexual reproduction.
For example, in the article secondary sex characteristics, there is a sentence saying "In males, testosterone directly increases size and mass of muscles, vocal cords, and bones, deepening the voice, and changing the shape of the face and skeleton.". This applies to anyone who has taken testosterone such as some trans men.
More broadly, that article describes traits that are roughly correlated to an organism's role in sexual reproduction, and describes those traits as belonging to "male" or "female" organisms. It describes things such as appearance and sexual selection. The definitions of "male" and "female" in that context are related to, but separate from, their meaning in this article's definition.
The article for testosterone roughly says "Testosterone is the primary sex hormone in males." This is despite the fact that testosterone is also the primary sex hormone for some people and animals who don't produce sperm.
If this article said "the term 'male' also encompasses other features that generally correspond to an organism's role in sexual reproduction", or something like that, then the definition would be roughly complete. PBZE (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
@PBZE: sorry it took me while to respond.
But I believe you are either misreading the articles you used as examples or you don’t understand what they mean.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
@CycoMa1: No I'm not. PBZE (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
May I suggest that editors read Talk:Woman#Definition of a woman because this discussion is just rehearsing arguments made many times before, with no consensus emerging. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. 80.229.22.58 (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't know what you think you just "won", there, because there is actually consensus behind the lead section of Woman. CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, but it hasn't yet. Newimpartial (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Male/Archive_1&oldid=1263412258"