Talk:Sex

Circular Definition
This page refers to the page on gender ("commonly...synonymous with gender"), without ever actually defining "sex" in terms of biological male and female. And the page on "gender" defines gender as "the set of sociological, behavioural and cultural characteristics associated with each biological sex," and links to the page on sex.

In other words, as written, these definitions either form a vicious circle, or are demonstrably false; sex is ("commonly") synonymous with gender, but gender is non-biological, which means that sex (male and female) is not biological. If sex is different from gender this should be stated explicitly, and "sex" should be defined independently of gender.
 * Then fix it. 18:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have fixed this. “Biological sex” is determined by the motility of the organism's gametes. Not their genitals, not their hormones, not anything else. As far as sexual reproduction goes for biologists—and thus assigning sex to an organism—it involves one and only one important and necessary element: the male has a gamete that self-propels itself, and the female has a gamete that doesn't.
 * All the rest are just highly correlated characteristics, that cannot be used to 100% guarantee assignment of a biological sex, let alone our perception of the sex of another individual. Thus trying to use any “biological sex” to assert against another's identity cannot be sustained, unless you're getting stupid technical.
 * N.B. the biological sex of an individual would put many assigned-at-birth women as male, and as such, rarely gets asserted by actual biologists, because they don't want to stir that pot of dealing with all the social issues involved with forcing a social class and presentation upon anyone. Especially, when none of that has anything to do with actual biological sex. -- 00:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hopelessly confused! Biological sex is fundamentally genetic, and is what causes people to have different body plans for the purpose of reproduction. Clearly naturally occurring genitals, hormones, breasts, etc are signifiers of what sex someone is, and what biological sex is ‘about’. And who are you to say that people are not allowed to make their sex an important aspect of their identity? - People often base their identity on religion and that’s literally supernatural folktales. If someone wants to make motherhood a fundamental aspect of their identity then that’s perfectly valid. People can not change sex. They can of-course choose any gender presentation that makes them happy, though for a time it looked like humans were growing beyond the anachronistic idea that people should have a gender, a measure of how masculine or feminine they were (As an individual, who cares?) For a time progressives understood that females should not be obliged to be feminine - now we’re supposed to require feminine people to see themselves as female. It’s literally a crazily disordered take on reality. 84.92.59.184 (talk)


 * You're late. 2A02:120B:C3FB:3B40:90BB:DB7D:374C:8ED8 (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * LOL if you think nature plays it easy and well defined with gender despite being a complete mess literally everywhere else like the whole species/subspecies debacle or the whole dialect/language debate or how to exactly categorize protozoa, or this entire beast of intersex complexities, you'd be seriously mistaken. Take a look at sea animals and weep and throw away your weird bioessentialist crap. 01:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Sex is related to the size of gametes, not their motility

Rayzoo (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * In oogamy, all smaller gametes (also known as microgametes) are motile, and all larger gametes (also known as macrogametes) are non-motile. But this is just because oogamy is defined as such as a subset of anisogamy, where the microgamete is classified as male, and the macrogamete is classified as female, but it is not guaranteed that either gamete is motile. (While I see evidence that it is possible that the macrogamete might be motile, this is apparently only true when the microgamete is also motile. This situation does not appear to have a specific term.) Oogamy is pretty much the most common form of anisogamy though, which is likely where I got my misinformation from. However, yes, anisogamy does define the distinction of female vs. male gametes via size. Oogamy only defines _itself_ based on the behaviors of the pre-existing distinction of female vs. male gametes.
 * Thanks for the helpful pointer! I’ve been meaning to lookup these details, but haven’t really had time.
 * Of an interesting side note, motile microgametes are called spermy “sperm” and “spermatozoon” are generic terms for microgametes, while immotile microgametes of spermatozoids are called spermatia (sg. spermatium). Spermatozoid appears to be a term for motile microgametes of sporing rather than seeding plants. While, “pollen” exists as a specialized term for spermatia in plants immotile sperm in seeding plants . -- 13:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Differences between men and women, in a nutshell

 * New video from ASAPscience! While a video like this obviously races through things, it's interesting to see the nuance resulting from an integration of scientific findings on biological and cultural factors alike. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

God and sex
According to the God-botherers, God created sex: so why do he and they have such problems with the act (between consenting adults)? Anna Livia (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ex-catholic here. I think it is because sex should be considered an act 1) only between married couples 2) for procreation. I am an atheist so I don't believe any of that trash, but I assume that was the reasoning I was taught. Also, they don't really care if it's consensual as long as it fulfills those two criteria. Of course it doesn't make sense (just like sin doesn't make sense: blaming YOUR creation for things they do but you could've made them not do it... what). 18:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * How many other 'divinities of any, fluid, none, and all' gender persuasions have any problems with humans having sex? (Beyond 'do not mess with my priests and priestesses'?)
 * I assume the 'consenting adults and being courteous towards others not participating' is the default RW position. Anna Livia (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes of course, I meant it in regards to the religious fundamentalists. They don't really care about consent. Just to be clear: I believe consent is paramount. 19:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And 'accept that other people can have #very# weird tastes (in practice and in their imagination).
 * What are the attitudes of 'other deities' towards their pets' sex lives? Anna Livia (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I fixed the definition of "biological sex."
I don't know why you thought it had to with motility, but I fixed it. You're welcome. VerminWiki (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Revert explantion
Your edit sucks. Slime molds are isogamous not anisogamous, slime molds are not male or female for this reason. And as for worker bees and worker ants the reason they are female is because their bodies are still oriented toward the production of large gametes. We can see this in phenomenon of the laying worker bee. I can see why you made this mistake because the Wikipedia page for Sex inaccurately states the size of the gametes determine an organism's sex, when, in reality, the it is the orientation of the body towards the production of large or small gametes determines sex. The reason why we define sex this way is because if we defined it purely as "gamete production" infertility would be a third sex or lack of sex, which simply isn't true. If that seems odd to you consider why prepubescent children and post menopausal woman still have a sex despite not producing any gametes. VerminWiki (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * the citation I provided is from an evolutionary biologist, and my biology textbooks also defines sex in this way too. This also probably why Wikipedia defines it as such as well. The anisogamous objection also doesn't work in that we extend the need for a biological definition of sex to extend to and I quote "Because a biological definition of sex has to work for all sexually reproductive life, and not just humans/mammals" then we imply that this extends to all sexually reproductive life...which includes slime molds. Also I am not sure I trust the intelligence of someone correcting me who can't even spell "explanation" correctly. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC).
 * Also corrupt users' writing is just bad, and should be corrected to flow better. Putting that many bracketed statements in a sentence just makes it overbearing and difficult to read. I am not saying I am better writer, but we should probably work to improve the readability of the language. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Check the edit logs. That wasn't me.  Only the Note was mine.  04:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry I misread, whoever wrote it before then. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC).
 * No need to insult my intelligence, especially since you can't even spell "quote" correctly. That aside, I mostly approve with this new edit. Readability is improved but there are still some issues. First, get rid of the scare quotes around "oriented", it feels like you put that there to to spite me specifically. Second, get rid of both uses of "of course" and the "really" in front of "apply." It makes the sentence flow better. Also, I wrote the initial edit, thank you. VerminWiki (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Touché on the spelling error. I am not putting the scare quotes to spite you it's just "orient" has "directed" connotations that are ontologically problematic. Also a citation should be provided to verify this definition of sex. I will remove the superfluous language. -Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As the original author of "Because a biological definition of sex has to work for all sexually reproductive life, and not just humans/mammals", in the case of isogamy, the definition of female/male becomes non-useful, as categorization based on size/shape is no longer possible. So, it’s reasonable to declare it as an exceptional situation, and seek a different taxonomy. It seems they use “+” and “-” strains, and arbitrarily allocate them on a per species basis. —— 14:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)