Talk:Intersex/Archive 15

About hermaphroditism
I get what you were doing was in good faith, but changing it to that is misleading.

This source on page 243 states. undefined

This source on page 116 says. undefined

On page 304 the book also says this. undefined

I have a lot more sources on this but, I’m most just showing only these two at the moment because I’m lazy.CycoMa (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * None of those quotes show that "humans cannot be hermaphrodites". In general, this sort of claim is difficult to prove and there is no reasoning that would make it easy to infer that it is impossible (given humans can have ovarian and testicular tissue). It's hard to believe, but "never been observed" is correct, "cannot be" is not. Maneesh (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * These aren’t the only sources. More are coming just be patient.CycoMa (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I am quite confident that there is no underlying biophysical reason that humans absolutely cannot have functional ovarian and testicular tissue. This report claims it has been observed Furthermore, the ovarian tissues of true hermaphrodites were mainly functional and ovulatory. The testicular tissues were mainly immature. However, spermatogenesis was determined in some cases.. It's a bold claim, no real strong evidence, but no reason to declare "cannot". Maneesh (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * [this source]
 * Of note, the otherwise well-studied insects, birds, and mammals are strikingly absent here—with not a single species among these groups showing hermaphroditism (for details on a supposedly hermaphroditic scale insect, however, see Gardner and Ross, 2011).
 * Does this help?CycoMa (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Also the source you present is a medical source, the sources I presented are mainly biological sources.CycoMa (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If a human with functional ovarian and testicular tissue were ever observed, it would certainly be reported in a medical source. The biological sources are talking about hermaphroditism at a generalized species level (i.e., something that can be observed that is inherent part of the organism in that species), they implicitly are not denying the existence of rare individuals. Maneesh (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * [this source] on page 290 says.
 * Mammals and birds are solely gonochoric.
 * solely means exclusively.CycoMa (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You are interpreting the source too literally. Mammals and birds are certainly gonochoric as a species, given what our picture of a "normal" individual from that species that is derived from many observations. Humans are also bipedal, trichromats etc. Even though we don't always write "as a species", individuals can obviously not be bipedal, not trichromats etc. The source I've already posted makes it clear that there is no reason to believe that humans cannot have functional ovarian and testicular tissue as it speculates on the possibility of autofertility. Maneesh (talk) 01:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Buddy I told you the source you presented is a medical source written by some medical professionals in Turkey. Biology is not their professional, treating people who are sick or injured their profession. The sources I presented to you is written by individuals who try to understand living organisms, how they evolve, and they function.CycoMa (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Also that source is undue wrong from a medical perspective. There was literally a consensus in 2006 that the term hermaphrodite is misleading and stigmatizing.CycoMa (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I mean they are undue weight.CycoMa (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is very difficult to interpret what you have written. The article defines hermaphodite in that section as "A hermaphrodite is defined as an organism that has the ability to produce both male and female gametes.". If such human individuals do exist, they are certainly rare. There is no current established consensus on their existence. A report of a human with functional (gamete producing) ovarian and testicular tissue (regardless if it does or doesn't use 2006 consensus terminology) does not violate any law of biology or reasoning (since there are certainly humans hat certainly posses both types of tissue with only one type that is functional). A medical journal is a perfectly legitimate (in fact the only sensible) place to publish a report on a human with functional ovarian and testicular tissue, such a claim doesn't have to come from a biologist (I can't imagine how it would in the case of humans since clinicians are the ones that generally examine them). You are trying to say "because biologists know that almost all mammals are gonochoric you can't have a rare individual who is not", which is just not true. Again, there is no credible support for the idea that a human with functional ovarian and testicular tissue *cannot* exist, none of the sources say that. No credible biologist would. Biologists obviously take great delight in finding rare individuals that have exceptional qualities with respect to their species. Maneesh (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Biologists obviously take great delight in finding rare individuals that have exceptional qualities with respect to their species.
 * What do you expect from a comment like that? Comments like that are gonna get you in trouble for soap boxing.
 * I mean did you ignore the parts I quoted? I mean seriously I literally quoted a reliable source that states gonochorism literally means a species has either a male or female sex.
 * Look at the definition of [gonochorism].
 * Also gonochorism literally means a species can’t have hermaphrodites.]
 * I mean I shown you a source that states gonochorism means a species exclusively has either a male or female sex.
 * Like it feels like you are analyzing the sources I’m presenting.CycoMa (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Look if hermaphrodites existed in humans, are species would be classified as trioecy. But there aren’t any sources that claim this.CycoMa (talk) 02:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confused about how to interpret basic scientific writing and reasoning. Again, there is no credible reasoning that makes rare humans with functional ovarian and testicular tissue an impossibility. The discovery of such a rare individual would not make biologists reclassify humans as trioecous. The definitions that biologists use in this case don't by magic make certain types of rare events impossible (biologists are very aware of this). There are certain sorts of things we can call fairly impossible based on very credible reasoning: humans that are 100ft tall, that live for 2000 years, that can fly unassisted by flapping their arms etc. Humans with functional ovarian and testicular tissue are not such impossibilities. Maneesh (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Buddy the source you present is from 2018 and the cases they mentioned were from the 1980s and 1970s.
 * A source I presented saying humans are gonochoric is from 2019.
 * A source that says most animals are gonochoric is from 2020.
 * The source that says hermaphroditism doesn’t exist in humans is from 2007.
 * The source that says mammals and birds are solely gonochoric is from 2018.
 * You are basically waisting our time here, are you aware of the non original research policy? Don’t combine sources to come to a conclusion.CycoMa (talk) 02:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean I haven’t seen any sources that claimed humans are trioecous or any mammal.CycoMa (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You keep trying say that "because it is defined this way, rare individuals that violate that definition are impossible" very flawed reasoning. I can explain to you why humans cannot run faster than the speed of light, live without oxygen, be larger than a certain volume etc. There is no such explanation for why humans cannot have functional ovarian and testicular tissue. No biologist would ever make that claim and that claim is not implicit when biologists define mammals as gonochoric. Maneesh (talk) 02:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * buddy I never once said that at all. I’m calling you out because you are doing original research by analyzing what you think something is on the matter.
 * Unless you have seen a source that says humans are trioecious or that gonochorism doesn’t mean a species can’t have hermaphrodites. Then you don’t have anything to stand on.
 * Also just to make things clear these sources even address this.CycoMa (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I mean come the source you presented does even claim humans are trioecious or anything extraordinary.CycoMa (talk) 04:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I mean have you ever heard of the extraordinary claims thing here on Wikipedia?CycoMa (talk) 04:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll let other editors continue the conversation. There is no "original research", you don't have the familiarity to understand how to interpret biological claims. No human has been observed with gamete producing ovarian and testicular tissue, but it does not follow that one *cannot* exist. The fact that humans are defined as gonochoric is a reflection of the fact that this is what is observed in all known humans, it is not a constraint on very rare possibilities. This is notinference, it is the correct interpretation of claims from your very own sources. Maneesh (talk) 04:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Question do you even know what you are talking about the matter? Seriously do you know why it’s classified this way?CycoMa (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

To anyone who hasn’t followed through here are what the sources say.

This source on page 243 states. undefined

[this source] Of note, the otherwise well-studied insects, birds, and mammals are strikingly absent here—with not a single species among these groups showing hermaphroditism (for details on a supposedly hermaphroditic scale insect, however, see Gardner and Ross, 2011).

This source undefined

This source on page 129 undefined

This source says undefined

[This source on page 584.]

undefined

The source he is presenting is a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim.CycoMa (talk) 06:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

[this source on page 1113] states The only know vertebrate simultaneous hermaphrodites are hamlets CycoMa (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing: I think you were largely missing Maneesh's point, which is that most of your sources are speaking about the human species in general, but he was pointing to a source which stated that it may be possible for an exceedingly rare individual to produce both gametes, at least in some tissue. Even such an individual would be unable to use both in reproduction with another person, however, and this is not an evolved function as in these other species, but due to a cascade of unusual events in development. Due to these differences, I'm not convinced that the sentence needs to be changed. Perhaps "never been observed" would be okay though. Hmm. Crossroads -talk- 04:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * here’s the thing about that, many reliable sources would say humans are a gonochoric species. That very definition basically means a species can’t have hermaphrodites, it’s that simple. I told y’all that are our species is gonochoric, and you misinterpreted to think it’s saying some people are gonochoric and others aren’t.


 * I mean it seems like there is some miscommunication going on here.
 * Also it should be pointed out that all those cases of individuals producing or at least possibly producing both are all chimeras and are poorly studied (trust me there aren’t that many cases so it wasn’t hard to figure that out.)
 * Chimerism means an organism has dna from separate individuals, the biological definition of hermaphroditism means that both sexes are present in a single individual.CycoMa (talk) 04:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * If a species is classified as gonochoric, that means it has either a male or female sex. I mean unless you find a source that says our species is classified as trioecous he doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Also the definition of hermaphrodite presented in this article is the most simple definition of hermaphrodite.
 * Definitions of hermaphrodite vary.CycoMa (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Like this source define hermaphrodite as.
 * undefinedCycoMa (talk) 05:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the points raised by both Maneesh and Crossroads, and I am not sure it would be helpful to repeat them again. I encourage you to carefully reread what they are saying. The currently cited sources for the disputed sentence both lean more toward a statement like, "No cases have been observed of human hermaphroditism." If there are sources that categorically rule out the possibility of any future human hermaphrodites (I doubt there are) then we could reliably source the current sentence. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * the sources cited in that sentence say these.
 * This source on page 243 states.

undefined
 * This source
 * undefined
 * Also the term hermaphrodite not being used for humans is well sourced.
 * This source says
 * undefined


 * This source says
 * undefined


 * There is even this paper touching on the change in terminology.


 * I mean do you y’all not understand what I’m trying to say here? Because I believe you are confused.
 * The idea of humans being hermaphrodites is clearly falling out of fashion at this point.CycoMa (talk) 06:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We all understand what you are saying, and you can stop citing sources that say substantively the same thing. You still have not actually engaged with the points being made by other editors. You are citing a bunch of sources to convince us that the sky is blue; we are telling you those sources don't say that the sky may someday be briefly purple., would you be amenable to an edit similar to the one I proposed above? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. The edit proposed above, "No cases have been observed of human hermaphroditism",  or "There have been no reliable reports of a human hermaphroditism" would be fine. Maneesh (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m trying to engage with y’all but it appears your argument basically relies on definitions that don’t always align with each other.

Look it’s already well cited at this point the idea of humans being classified as hermaphrodites is for the most part outdated. Also keep in kind at the end of the day, labels and classifications are a human creation.

If a majority of doctors agree humans aren’t hermaphrodites Wikipedia shouldn’t say they are. Even if the definitions don’t always align and it doesn’t matter if you have your own definition of hermaphrodite.CycoMa (talk) 06:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Also throw these details out humans are mammals and vertebrates. I presented sources stating that the only hermaphroditic vertebrates occur in fishes, it’s kind of obvious what those sources are saying. I am just mentioning just in cases someone missed it.CycoMa (talk) 07:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure maybe the idea of hermaphrodite humans isn’t fully off the table but, that source Maneesh presented is out numbered by more sources, it’s weak compared to the other sources presented here, and it isn’t a very mainstream either.CycoMa (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

So even if it is a reliable source, it isn’t the most ideal source.CycoMa (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I would be fine with (There have been no reliable reports of a human hermaphroditism) But still whether or not humans can be hermaphrodites are not boils down to what definition of hermaphrodite is being used.CycoMa (talk) 07:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * of course, but there is a definition in that section being used, as I've pointed out already: "A hermaphrodite is defined as an organism that has the ability to produce both male and female gametes.". It is not true that humans *cannot* be hermaphrodites according to this definition even though there has never been a reliable report of one. There is no known reasoning (to date) that makes it impossible to have functional ovarian *and* testicular tissue even though such an instance would be exceptional. Maneesh (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah none of those reports are perfect as a matter of fact ovotesticular disorder is so rare there is only 500 confirmed cases.

Some sources say there are no cases of male fertility while others say there is three cases.


 * I have read the cases cited in the source you presented. The cases never confirmed the individuals ever became fertile. I even looked at other sources that mentioned those cases and they weren’t sure about the individuals claims of them fathering children.
 * And as I mentioned before all the cases of individuals producing both gametes are chimeras, which is techinically two distinct individuals fused together.CycoMa (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

At this point, would it be helpful to have maybe a request for comment or something from medical professionals? I know we have a fantastic medical team currently working on the Covid-19 articles - perhaps asking for input from others similarly trained in this area would be best for figuring out consensus? -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to an RfC later, but I think it's premature. We actually look pretty close to a consensus here, with three of five participants supporting something like the new proposed language and the other two (you included) yet to chime in. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Do y’all not understand what I’m trying say?
 * Look the sources said the term hermaphrodite is outdated and it’s falling out of fashion, so it’s probably not ideal to put it or treat it like it’s a valid terminology.
 * And you guys assume it’s a valid terminology because of one source. Even tho that source isn’t even an ideal source. There aren’t that many sources about rare intersex conditions, we don’t know much about this and neither does medical professionals.CycoMa (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait I have an idea, how about we remove the definition of hermaphrodite from this article.CycoMa (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Maybe we could say there aren’t many reliable documented cases on the matter. Like I tried looking hard on the subject and unfortunately there have only been two possible cases of individuals supposedly producing both, and unfortunately secondary sources don’t give much information on them.
 * Or we could stay that the definition of hermaphrodite varies (if a source says that.)
 * Or we could say that the term hermaphrodite is falling out of fashion due to the term being considered misleading and stigmatizing. I am aware there are some sources that still use that term to an extent.CycoMa (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Now the article has been changed on the very matter where consensus was being established. Maneesh (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I don’t know if one of us is misreading something but was the consensus to remove the definition of hermaphrodite? Or was the consensus to mention it?CycoMa (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * CycoMa, you are misreading this conversation. None of us have supported the removal of hermaphroditism or its definition from the article. We still want the article to say that no human hermaphroditism has been observed. We just don't want it to say that hermaphroditism in humans is impossible, at least not without a reliable source saying so specifically. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay sorry, I guess your right. One of the reliable sources cited did directly say it doesn’t exist. Although that source is from 2009 and is written by a single individual.
 * Maybe we could add onto it a bit.CycoMa (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Are y’all fine with the change I made? Any objections or changes to it?CycoMa (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You've added material on the usage of the term "hermaphrodite"...that's a bigger issue in this article (the mention of Hermaphroditus is prominent under history...which makes very very little sense as I had pointed out in an earlier talk section). I think making the narrow change to the article (at the point where my change was reverted) and then discussing the general usage of hermaphrodite in the article (and hopefully bulldozing the absurdities in the history section) separately makes sense. Maneesh (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Well it’s not easy to apply labels to things in nature. As I said before the definition of hermaphrodite presented is one of the most simply definitions of it. Another definition of hermaphrodite is an organism with both male and female sex organs.CycoMa (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly I don’t think it’s appropriate to go in depth on the definition here in this article. It would be more appropriate to go on the definition at hermaphrodite.CycoMa (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Maneesh that our overall treatment of hermaphrodite is a separate issue. I prefer my/Maneesh/Crossroad's proposed language over CycoMa's recent version. We don't need to state both "no documented cases" and "does not exist" and we don't need the weasel words. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well reliable sources directly said that don’t exist or no documented cases. Have you been ignoring what I have been saying, our definition of hermaphrodite is a simplistic definition.

Like did you read the sources yourself?CycoMa (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Like seriously a reliable source said hermaphroditism doesn’t exist in humans.CycoMa (talk)|
 * Yes, again, we have all read and understood your points and sources. I know that the sources support there being no documented cases and I want our article to say that. I hate repeating myself, and am going to wait to hear the thoughts of other editors. CycoMa, you may want to let other people have some sustained conversation without bludgeoning this discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I did this, this should be good:
 * "The term hermaphrodite for humans has been falling out of fashion in recent years due to there being no documented cases of hermaphroditism occurring in humans."....well..no...that's just a little understated. From a source cited on this very page "No. The mythological term “hermaphrodite” implies that a person is both fully male and fully female. This is a physiologic impossibility. The words “hermaphrodite” and “pseudo-hermaphrodite” are stigmatizing and misleading words.". There are no "mythological hermaphrodites" amongst humans. There are no known "biological hermaphrodites", but that's not why the term has fallen out of use. The cited sources don't support the assertion in the article. First source just says is has fallen out of favor (not why): "This usage has fallen out of favor and in any case was technically incorrect.", second asserts "...human hermaphrodites do not exist." not anything about falling out of favor. Really should just say something like "intersex advocacy groups advise against the use of hermaphrodites to describe intersex people since it is considered stigmatizing and generally incorrect".Maneesh (talk) 04:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That matches my reading as well. I believe it's more than just intersex advocacy groups. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

enough already this discussion is over.CycoMa (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You can't do that. Maneesh, I suggest editing it as you feel is needed then, and I or others can refine it if we feel it's needed. This thread is a mess. Crossroads -talk- 05:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * how about you just edit it in a way you seem fit. And then the other editors will adjust up a bit.CycoMa (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I edited the lack of human hermaphroditism cases sentence and tried to match language proposed by other editors. I took out the portion referring to "falling out fashion" as I think section 1.3 already covers that idea. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I’m fine with that change.CycoMa (talk) 06:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * - I honestly don't have the willpower to wade through this article and figure out what I support, so please don't wait up for me to chime in as part of consensus. I would say that I think a slowdown of edits would be more conducive to building consensus, however. At the very least, it'd give people a chance to get their heads around things. -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries! There's no deadline. For reference, here's a diff that covers all the edits since the start of this talk page section to the posting of this comment. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

This has gotten silly. The para I've put in is well supported sources provides a fairly sensible thread across biological taxonomy to intersex individuals. There needs to be an emphasis on the fact that the reports of human hermaphrodites (people with the ability to produce functional gametes of both sexes) are relatively low quality and lower priority against the fact that no single human has been observed in both male and female reproductive roles. There is, no doubt, more editing to apply to my para but the key points should remain. I don't think CycoMa's edits come across as coherent.Maneesh (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe I found a source that addresses the whole thing about humans producing both. It’s some biology written in 2015 by German biologists.CycoMa (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Also does it really matter whether or not it’s coherent?
 * Here’s the thing the thing about hermaphroditism in humans is poorly understood, so of course information on a topic isn’t always align up with each other.
 * This kind of happens with controversial topics.CycoMa (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you are reading the sources when you make the claim in your edit summary that "Yeah that source didn’t say that.". What does the source say? Copy and paste the definition of "Hermaphrodites" here from the cited source. Maneesh (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * of course I’m reading the sources, I literally quoted them to you honestly this discussion is getting tiring.
 * I’m gonna present various definitions of hermaphrodite for you.
 * [this source says]Hermaphrodites: individuals that contain both male and female sex organs.
 * [this source says] Hermaphroditism (in animals), monoecy (in plants)Systems in which male and female sexes exist in the same individual, i.e. a single individual produces both small and large gametes.
 * See how these reliable sources vary in definitions, like the definition of hermaphrodite on the article hermaphrodite is more board than the one presented here.
 * So who cares whether or not it’s inconsistent. What matters is whether or not scholars classify humans as hermaphrodites.CycoMa (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am restoring Maneesh's most recent version. The cited source supports that version's definition of hermaphroditism, and it aligns with other definitions elsewhere in the article. "More comprehensive" is a good way of indicating to readers that secondary sources support there being no cases of human hermaphroditism (despite one primary source discussing some individuals who maybe came close). Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * This is why I suggested we remove the definition of hermaphrodite from this article, because definitions vary way too much.
 * Too the point things become inconsistent. It was honestly a mistake to define hermaphrodite here anyway. It’s more ideal to define it at hermaphrodite.CycoMa (talk) 03:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Just gonna put some stuff down in this talk section just in case.
 * Y’all don’t have to reply, I’m just putting it down because it may be useful.
 * This source on page 1151 saysundefined
 * Please don’t get upset I’m just trying my best to help.CycoMa (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: I changed the title of this section; having a username as the subject heading of an article talk page section is not appropriate. Feel free to change it to something else, if you feel that 'About hermaphroditism' doesn’t well represent the article improvement issue you wanted to discuss here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I’ll admit naming this section based on an individuals username was inappropriate.CycoMa (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * But anyway the issue at hand is that these cases are heavily poorly understood. Like I struggled with editing True Hermaphroditism because the sources kept contradicting each other.CycoMa (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay seriously why do you an issue with my sources.
 * Individuals like Randolph M. Nesse, George C. Williams (biologist), and John Maynard Smith are reliable sources,
 * Also by the way the author for [this source] has written a chapter for this book. which is the same source you use to cite the definition of hermaphrodite.
 * I mean come on if a source says “there are no hermaphroditic species in mammals” how else do you interpret that?
 * Are you overanalyzing what is being said?


 * Like I don’t understand why you put undefined
 * I saw that source cite in that sentence it does not say more comprehensive sources state this, if are gonna claim more comprehensive sources say there is no human hermaphrodites at least include the sources I had.CycoMa (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Also regarding the hermaphroditism in mammals, those sources didn’t say hermaphroditic mammals can’t exist. They said there are no hermaphroditic mammal species.
 * Sure there there is a possibility that a certain mammal species could evolve to be hermaphroditic.CycoMa (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay sorry about that. My issue is that I’m not a fan of more comprehensive sources state this because none of the sources say that.
 * Also a recap because I do tend to ramble. The sources on hermaphroditism in mammals didn’t say they can’t exist.CycoMa (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)