Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 17:00 UTC, 30 November!

Talk:Sex

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sex.svg

This Sexuality related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png

Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)



Proposal[edit]

I propose new introduction to the article, it's visible in Fossil Records. -- DasRationalpersone Socks cat 1.JPG (Annoy me!) 15:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


For the other meaning of word "sex," see Gender.

Sex is biological act of procreation at animals, while at human species it may be more properly defined as satisfying one's sexual needs.


On account of digging through previous revisions being a pain, I've copied that version and placed it above. Scarlet A.png...I'll reiterate your tadpole! 15:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. -- DasRationalpersone Socks cat 1.JPG (Annoy me!) 16:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
What's your problem with the current article? Pink mowse.pngGodotGet over it!. 16:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I just don't see sense in bombarding the introduction with three definitions of title word when the article obviously talks about one of them. Remember disambiguation? That's what they're for. -- DasRationalpersone Socks cat 1.JPG (Annoy me!) 16:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Good point. It's an amusing enough idea to present the different definitions next to each other, but in a lead paragraph, in an article rather than dictionary? Not so much. Scarlet A.png...I'll shove your disaster! 16:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
So, if noone has any objections, I'll just put in my definition. -- DasRationalpersone Socks cat 1.JPG (Annoy me!) 13:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Undoubtedly there'll be thousands of objections, and a vote, but only after you've changed it. I would go ahead and add the simplest explanation that's relevant to the context of the article - if anyone is really feeling pedantic we can add a section below that explaining others. I do want to remind people that this is an article, not a dictionary, though. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 13:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
My bad. Sam Tally-ho! 18:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No biggie. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 23:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Bringing it back to what it was before DasRationale messed it up.[edit]

Sex or sexual intercourse is biological act of procreation at animals, while at human species it may be more properly defined as satisfying one's sexual needs. Humans tend to restrict acceptable types of sexual intercourses only to types that are morally acceptable..." If you think that is an improvement over what's there now, you're on crack. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 15:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Please present arguments before calling me a drug addict. Until then, you have no right to reverse me. -- DasRationalpersone Socks cat 1.JPG (Annoy me!) 16:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Your writing is shit. It's full of basic grammatical mistakes, and it's incredibly selfish of you to reinsert them without trying to fix them. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 16:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I know my writing is shit, I'm not a native speaker. We might as well leave primary definition in the article, but only one of them. -- DasRationalpersone Socks cat 1.JPG (Annoy me!) 16:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you're not a native speaker. That said, your version is stilted, stiff, and has none of the stylistic fun of a Ratwik article. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 16:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
??? Isn't the stylistic fun for more suitable for Fun: section? -- DasRationalpersone Socks cat 1.JPG (Annoy me!) 16:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You must be new here. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 16:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm Scarlet A.pngtheist 17:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Circular Definition[edit]

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. — Unsigned, by: Flabb / talk / contribs

Then fix it. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 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. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 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)

Differences between men and women, in a nutshell[edit]

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[edit]

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). — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 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. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 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)