Talk:Sex–gender distinction/Archive 2

Adjusting the terminology of the opening sentence
Most trans people do not feel comfortable with the phrase 'biological sex', and frankly it implies that trans women are still 'biologically men' even though that is factually untrue. I propose we edit it to match the actually accepted and appropriate terminology of 'assigned sex at birth' or 'assigned gender at birth'.

Asdfmovienerd39 (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I would state "some" rather than "most" since there are a lot of trans people who are fine with the term biological sex and don't think that it invalidates their gender identity, even though/when it's used to do just that by some people.


 * Anyway, I changed the text to just "sex", like the title of that article. "Biological" is not needed. And in the case of this article, with what the sources are stating, I think it's best to go with "sex" instead of "assigned sex." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

He, She, Him, Her, Boy, Girl, Male, Female
Some background on the sex-oriented terms: He, She, Him, Her, Boy, Girl, Male, Female vs the gender-oriented terms: He, She, Him, Her, Boy, Girl, Male, Female   should be added to the article so that there is clarity. From what I see so far, the entire sex/gender solution can be easily resolved by creating forms and computer software that refer to sex, not gender, i.e. sex: male / female. And if you call someone eg: he or she, and they got offended, you can then just ask what sex are you? Just never refer to anyone's gender, why care... if someone doesn't care about their own gender, why care about others?

ZhuLien (talk) 5:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.190.174 (talk)

English only
This is tied to the English language specifically, it has no universal relevance and is not Scientific. It is written as if the two English words defines the whole concept, which is not the case, as there's no such dichotomy in many other languages. So it is a linguistic feature of English and not a conceptual one.62.198.135.135 (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Um I have a hard time understanding what you are requesting. Are you having an issue with the language in the article? Are you having an issue with this article being non-Scientific?CycoMa (talk) 06:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I may add more to the sex section
I’m thinking about adding more to the sex section to add more information on it. It’s kind of clear that WHO’s definition of sex is different from the biological definition.CycoMa (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , your recent edit took content out of the sex section. I am not 100% clear on your reasons for removal, and I invite you to explain the bold edit here.Based on your edit summary, I can tell we disagree on issues of redundancy. To me, it is sensible to include a brief, well-linked description of intersex and trans status in the Sex section, as they are inseparably linked to an understanding of sex. Intersex is not discussed again until the Feminism section; we should probably be expanding our discussion of intersex in the Sex section instead of eliminating it.Your edit summary also suggests that you believe assigned sex to clash with your understanding of biology. Could you please establish your position using reliable sources before removing again? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I can understand why the mention of transgender and intersex was mentioned in the sex section but language like assigned sex kind of goes against what the biological definition and views of sex. That sex section cited four sources on what the biological definition of male or female is.


 * Assigned sex is mostly used in medicine.CycoMa (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The current source for that is the CDC, which in addition to being reputable, is primarily focused on public health as opposed to medicine. Either way, since the current language is well sourced, removal should be based on well sourced reasons. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Don’t you think that they are only using such language to please a certain group. I mean the goal of medical groups is to help treat people and make them better.
 * Also as I stated before language like assigned sex isn’t language used from a biological perspective. As I stated, I cited like four sources that state male and female from a biological perspective is defined by what gametes you produce.


 * The sources I cited are reliable. I cited biologists from various parts of the world from the USA, UK, India, and even Italy. (Also one of those sources is written by two Canada biologists.)


 * I even cited Richard Dawkins, he is a pretty well known biologist. He was a professor at Oxford, he even got his PhD there. Keep in mind Oxford is considered one of the best schools in the world. (Just check the article on Oxford.)


 * Two of the sources I cited pass the WP:CHOPSY test since one is from Cambridge and another author is a professor at Oxford.


 * Also a lot of the sources I cited are pretty recent, two of them are from 2019. So it’s clear that many biologists still define sex in this way.


 * Medical sources can be reliable but, you must keep in mind medical sources use language to help patients. Like Gender Dysphoria used to be called Gender Identity Disorder but, the name was changed due to stigma. The name didn’t change because a change in understanding in science, it changed because they didn’t want trans people to be stigmatized.


 * The biological sources are there to understand how life and living organisms function or understand how they evolved.CycoMa (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I get that on Wikipedia I’m supposed to avoid adding personal opinions but I’m not gonna pretend language like “assigned sex” is valid. CycoMa (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Regarding your comments about "assigned sex", see your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence needs a rewrite
The first sentence is awkward, probably due to attempts to force the article title into the sentence, and needs a rewrite. There are also some issues with BOLDing that need attention.

Currently, the WP:LEADSENTENCE is painfully awkward, and also tautological ("the distinction... differentiates.."):"The distinction between sex and gender differentiates a person's sex from that person's gender, which can refer to either social roles based on the sex of the person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity)." How 'bout, "The difference between sex and gender distinguishes a person's sex..." instead?

Just kidding. that would be just as bad as the current lead sentence. The MOS specifically says that if attempting to force the article title into the first sentence causes an awkward result, then the whole sentence should be recast in a more natural way, even if that means there will be no bold title in the lead. This may be one of those cases. Perhaps there's a clever way to recast the sentence to keep the title in it, but we shouldn't jump through hoops trying to achieve that. (While we're talking about bolding: the bolding of distinction between sex and gender is improper, even if we don't change the sentence, as it fails both MOS:BOLDTITLE and MOS:BOLDSYN.)

The term sex and gender distinction is a descriptive title, which is one way of saying that it's a term invented by Wikipedia editors to describe a notable concept, but for which there's no general agreement among those sources on exactly what words to use to name it. Or, as article title policy has it: "Descriptive title: where there is no acceptable set name for a topic, such that a title of our own conception is necessary, more latitude is allowed to form descriptive and unique titles."

That there is no generally acceptable common name for the concept, can be seen by using this highly cherry-picked, quoted search query designed to find that exact phrase. This query should turn up hundreds, or thousands of examples in the result set if sex and gender distinction is really a commonly used expression; but note the paucity of bolded snippets with that phrase, and the rather odd mix of sources that don't seem to be entirely on topic. Now, consider this unquoted, natural search query, designed to find good sources about the general topic, but without necessarily containing that exact phrase. Note the mix of highly relevant books about the topic among the results, none of which however appear to use the exact phrase, "sex and gender distinction". The combination of the results of these two searches is a strong indication that "sex and gender distinction" is not a commonly used phrase in the literature. This is *not* an argument that the current title should be changed; I think the current title is fine, and better than any other. However it is an argument that we shouldn't tie ourselves in knots trying to force the article title into the first sentence.

As for the sex and gender distinction, here's a different approach for the WP:LEADPARAGRAPH, which takes a historical approach informed by the second paragraph of Gender:"Theorists of second-wave feminism in the 1970s drew a distinction between the biological, innate features of sex, as opposed to the term gender, which they began to use as a term for the learned behavior of children following societal role models of appropriate behavior and expression for girls and boys. Prior to the 1950s, the term gender was used only to refer to a feature of grammar. In 1955, sexologist John Money was the first to use gender in a new way, to refer to a social aspect of sexually dimorphic behavior." This doesn't lend itself well to bolding of the article title, but that shouldn't matter. Otoh, I can see putting sentence one at the end, and leading with "Prior to the 1950s..", if we want a chronological approach. I think I'd leave a discussion of the differences between gender role and gender identity for the second paragraph, so that the first paragraph could be dedicated to just describing the sex and gender distinction, with the fine print left till later in the lead. Mathglot (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay that was honestly long so I’m gonna point out one statement.


 * ”This query should turn up hundreds, or thousands of examples in the result set if sex and gender distinction is really a commonly used expression.”
 * It’s probably not commonly used due to the fact this whole thing about sex and gender being is actually a recent thing.
 * The article on gender states this. “ However, Money's meaning of the word did not become widespread until the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the concept of a distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender.”
 * Judging by that statement the it is clearly obvious the reason they are separate is mainly because of political reasons. CycoMa (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I can’t say too much on this too be honest with you because I honestly don’t do much research on the social sciences. Most of the research I have done is mostly about the biological sciences. CycoMa (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Mathglot, I think that jumping right into history like that rather than concisely defining the concept is less than ideal. How about just consolidating the lead sentence, like this: A person's biological sex may be considered distinct from that person's gender, which can refer to either social roles based on the sex of the person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity). I think the meanings of gender is important enough for the lead sentence. And framing the topic as just about second-wave 1970s feminism could make it seem old or outdated; it's actually stronger now than ever, given the increased visibility of individuals whose sex differs from their gender. Scientific medical experts emphasize it: Crossroads -talk- 05:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes, I mostly buy your arguments, and agree that jumping into the history first rather than defining it first would be unorthodox; I was trying to look for alternatives to get past a sticking point on some what-should-be-minor issues; maybe it's too big a jump for that. Maybe something along the lines of what you said, except not biological sex because I think that's ambiguous: a majority of the lay public would equate that with genitalia, whereas a majority of biologists wouldn't, imho; and there's a (hopefully tiny) minority that have darker motives, and equate that with "one's 'real' sex", i.e, not trans*. Mathglot (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggested "biological sex" just because "sex" by itself may make people think of sexual intercourse by default, so it's a bit of mental speed-bump. I don't think the term necessarily has bad implications in a context like this. But it's not the focus of my proposal and it's not currently in there anyway. Crossroads -talk- 05:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * CycoMa, most of this is moot due to Crossroads's comment below yours, however I wanted to respond to a couple of things you said:
 * You misunderstand. The concept is hugely common, as the second search link above shows, with hundreds, or thousands of sources talking about the topic. The exact, word-for-word phrase sex and gender distinction is not commonly used, because there isn't one standard name for the concept. Even so, there are about 150 occurrences of the exact phrase in Scholar; but if you recast the search targeting the concept and not the exact phrase, then you get tens of thousands of results. You also said,
 * Yeah, and giving women the vote is based on political reasons (also based on feminist activism), so what? Science has come around to demonstrate that women are not inferior in intelligence to men, and have every right to vote. That something is based on some kind of political motivation, has no bearing on its accuracy from a scientific point of view; the two may be in sync, or not. More importantly, the overwhelming majority of recent reliable sources treat "sex" and "gender" as different topics, and thus, so should we. Stating that "they are separate  mainly because of political reasons" does not negate the concept, and sounds pretty much like the gender essentialist position to me, but I can't imagine that's what you were implying. Mathglot (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and giving women the vote is based on political reasons (also based on feminist activism), so what? Science has come around to demonstrate that women are not inferior in intelligence to men, and have every right to vote. That something is based on some kind of political motivation, has no bearing on its accuracy from a scientific point of view; the two may be in sync, or not. More importantly, the overwhelming majority of recent reliable sources treat "sex" and "gender" as different topics, and thus, so should we. Stating that "they are separate  mainly because of political reasons" does not negate the concept, and sounds pretty much like the gender essentialist position to me, but I can't imagine that's what you were implying. Mathglot (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and giving women the vote is based on political reasons (also based on feminist activism), so what? Science has come around to demonstrate that women are not inferior in intelligence to men, and have every right to vote. That something is based on some kind of political motivation, has no bearing on its accuracy from a scientific point of view; the two may be in sync, or not. More importantly, the overwhelming majority of recent reliable sources treat "sex" and "gender" as different topics, and thus, so should we. Stating that "they are separate  mainly because of political reasons" does not negate the concept, and sounds pretty much like the gender essentialist position to me, but I can't imagine that's what you were implying. Mathglot (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

We really need to do something about the tautology. The first part of the lead sentence is functionally equivalent to: "The distinction between red and green differentiates the color red from the color green." Good thing, too. Now I finally understand traffic lights. Mathglot (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I’m not arguing a gender essentialists perspective. I’m merely just stating what’s obvious. What I said was a mere simplification, I’m aware of why there is a distinction. Feminists aren’t the ones who invented the distinction. It was most some sexologist during the 1950s. CycoMa (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * And yes I’m aware that many scholars agree with this view. But, at the end of the day it’s all semantics. CycoMa (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * And as I stated before I don’t really do research on the social sciences around this topic. Most of the research I have done is mostly the biological sciences. CycoMa (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Institutional and governmental use
I've started a new section on "Institutional and governmental use" demonstrating the distinction between sex and gender as viewed by various governments, corporations, or other organizations, associations or institutions. It's important to note that the topic of this article is what it is&mdash;the distinction between the two terms; in particular, this is *not* an article on human rights, or on evolving legislation. However, given that written government sources about the distinction will inevitably touch on legislation (not always; some are glossaries, help pages, etc; but often), there will be sources that talk about legislation. I think it's fine to use those, as long as the assertions in the article, and the support in the sources, is about the *distinction* in terminology (or contrarily, the confusion or lack of distinction) and not about either the advancement or failures of human rights or protection. So, when discussing these, it's just a matter of staying on-topic, imho. There may be plenty of legislation that advances human rights but doesn't specifically address the distinction&mdash;these are off-topic, not relevant here. Conversely, there may be governmental pages (like glossaries) that discuss terminology, but say nothing about human rights&mdash;these are on-topic, and relevant.

I have in mind to add another section on theological and religious views of the distinction (or often, the lack of distinction) between sex and gender, but one thing at a time. Conceivably, religious use could go in the same section as an "institution", and we could split it out later, if it got big enough to warrant it. If you want to start a separate section for it, go for it; there's plenty of material. Mathglot (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

It occurs to me, that if this section was expanded to include many governments and organizations, it would soon become unduly long compared to the main part of the article. We're far from that point now, but there seems to be a great deal of reliable sourcing that applies to this section, which might eventually make it longer than the rest of the article, and require a WP:CONTENTSPLIT for reasons of WP:DUE WEIGHT. Mathglot (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Contradicting definitions
Here’s something I have an issue with is that this article has definitions and ideas that contradict each other.

For example the sex of from biologists goes against the definitions by GLAAD, WHO, and the dictionaries.

I mean can someone explain to me why this article does this?CycoMa (talk) 04:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Diffs or quotations, please. Mathglot (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the anisogamy reverts
Yeah regarding [|this] can y’all care to explain why. The source literally says biologists agree. I want people to know this is a mainstream view among biologists. CycoMa (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Since they agree, we simply state it as fact, as the preceding sentence does. Crossroads -talk- 05:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * here’s the thing the source I added never said they agreed that’s how male and female is defined. It said they agree that it’s the main difference between the sexes. I just don’t want it to come off as original research. CycoMa (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Will this new one do?
I rewritten the sentence to this

“It’s agreed that anisogamy (gametes differing in size) is the defining feature of the sexes.

Biologists agree that anisogamy is the main difference between the two sexes. Richard Dawkins even stated that it’s possible to interpret all the differences between the sexes stemming from this single difference in gametes.

By definition, males are organisms that produce small, mobile gametes (sperm); while females are organisms that produce large and generally immobile gametes (ova or eggs).”

Will this do for y’all?CycoMa (talk) 02:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are you so intent on inserting superfluous phrases about agreement where none are needed? That is the part of your edits that at least three different editors have taken issue with - and in none of your attempts to make it "better" have you left that out. Stop edit warring to reinsert it and at least explain why in those specific sentences and no other you believe it's so important to include. --Equivamp - talk 08:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * if there is an agreement why is it a problem that for it being mentioned. One source literally said biologists agree gamete size is the main difference. That’s literally what the source said. Isn’t Wikipedia supposed to side with majority views among scholars? CycoMa (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * can I at least quote what the texts say in the citation? CycoMa (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * seriously why is it hard to reply to you. CycoMa (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, adding the quotes to the source is generally fine and even encouraged. I can give more of a response later. -- Equivamp - talk 16:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * the reason why I wanted it inserted in so badly was because I wanted people to know this is a mainstream view among biologists.


 * I have even seen sources that directly say there is a consensus in this. Which two of the sources have stated it’s accepted.

CycoMa (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I mean one source literally said that biologists agree the difference in gamete size is the main difference between the sexes. That was source from PLOS Biology a peer reviewed scientific journal. I even asked at reliable source noticeboard if the information still holder up.
 * Did you or I misread something?
 * Were the sentences I added worded weirdly?
 * You also said there was no consensus on this topic. What makes you say that?CycoMa (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Look it’s not my job to say what view point is widely accepted or not. If a reliable source says something is accepted I have to add it.CycoMa (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please take time to carefully read the comments/edit summaries of people you're interacting with. I never said that there was no consensus on the topic. Nor did any of the other editors who have reverted or changed your additions - note that the sources you added were never removed. It is the fact there there is an uncontroversial scientific consensus that births the issue with your edits. If there wasn't a consensus, such as if there were some other debated viewpoint that Wikipedia needs to describe, then we would attribute the statement. As it stands, the phrase Biologists agree could be placed at the beginning of virtually every sentence in the article; why are you so keen on placing it in front of these two?
 * Another issue with your proposed edit is that the second sentence is just the first sentence, reworded slightly and stated again.
 * The MOS is littered with instructions to refrain from redundancy. See WP:TERSE for the most specific example. It's simply not acceptable to add so much clutter to the article. --Equivamp - talk 01:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Well I’m sorry I misread what y’all have been saying especially you. Look the reason I wanted to put it in was because there are many non-biologists who love to argue against that view. Also I didn’t want to be accused of original research so I tried my best to stick with what the sources were say.CycoMa (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just keep WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE in mind and think about whether those other arguments would even warrant a mention. --Equivamp - talk 15:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Anne Fausto-Sterling
Oh yeah about Anne Fausto-Sterling, the book cited here is from 2 decades ago. There are updated versions to it, so I’m not entirely sure she still believes these things.

Also I’m not entirely sure about this. undefined

Probably me overanalyzing, but this comes off as contradictory. Anne says it’s socially constructed and while at the same time say it’s a spectrum. Also why is this written like Fausto-Sterling’s opinion is 100% fact. Isn’t that technically against Wikipedia’s policies of treating opinions as fact.

Also why is this in here? undefined Who are these feminists exactly? Are these feminists experts in biology? If not we shouldn’t use language like “they accept” because it’s technically not their area to speak in. It would be appropriate to say there are feminists who think it is a social construct.CycoMa (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Also about the whole feminists accept it as a social construct. The whole social construct thing is mainly a thing talked about in the social sciences, it’s not really concept used in the other sciences. But anyway I’m not sure it’s appropriate that completely different fields of academia are saying different things about the same subject.

It’s like theologists saying evolution is a myth while biologists say it’s true.CycoMa (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * CycoMa, while we share an intellectual curiosity about why experts might say or write what they do, you occasionally shift beyond the "curious" phase, into what sounds to me like a personal evaluation on your part (or on our part, collectively) on whether their writings in published secondary sources should be included or not, because "they are not experts in X". This goes beyond our remit here, and you should back off that overture, and stick to our role, which is summarizing sources relevant to the topic and citing them.  If you believe a particular author or publishing medium is not reliable on a topic, it's certainly appropriate to take that up at WP:RSN, but you'll be laughed off the page if you try to say Butler isn't reliable for the topic of sex and gender; some might say she's the number one thinker in the world on the topic, and Fausto-Sterling is prominent in the field.
 * Once again, please refer to the title of this article which is about a distinction, in which the phrase sex and gender acts as a nominal adjective (what kind of distinction? A sex and gender distinction). This whole article is about a distinction, and the topic was expanded and popularized by feminists in the early second wave; had it not been for feminist theorists, perhaps nobody outside journals on hermaphroditism (in the 1950s and 60s) would ever have heard of the distinction in the first place. Put another way, feminist theory took the whole (very obscure, highly technical) concept of the sex and gender distinction (Money, 1955) into academic discourse as a subject worthy of wide discussion in a social and cultural sphere.  So, it would be completely impossible to even have an article on this topic without referring to the writings of feminists, and you can't have one on the topic without citing the feminists (and those who came after, feminist or not) who were influenced by the idea, and wrote about it as well.
 * Whether you agree with Butler, or Fausto-Sterling is beside the point. You don't have to agree with Marx and Engels to summarize their thoughts in an article on capitalism, and you don't have to agree with Fausto-Sterling or Butler to summarize their thoughts here. If doing so makes you want to gag, then just avoid that part of the article, and let someone else do it. It's not our role to challenge the chops of prominent thought leaders on a topic; as for the question of why they wrote what they did, that is probably unanswerable, but in any case, off-topic here (unless they wrote about it!) Mathglot (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * In addition to what Mathglot said, please consider how many bytes you've personally contributed to sex and gender-related articles and talk pages, and (re)-read WP:OWN. Funcrunch (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I think you are missing my point.
 * I’m not saying we shouldn’t include scholars I don’t agree with. Yes I know I’m over-analyzing.


 * I never said Butler or Fausto-Sterling aren’t experts on the topic nor did I say they shouldn’t be included.


 * With Judith Butler
 * I told you in the other discussion Butler was an expert and I never once denied her expertise.
 * When I called out Judith Butler, I’m basically pointing she is not an expert on biology, this isn’t even a personal opinion look her up yourself you wouldn’t find any sources saying she is an expert on biology.


 * I don’t understand why this article should treat an individual like her as expert on the biological view of sex, and it doesn’t matter if she is an expert on the distinction between sex and gender. If a scholar doesn’t have any expertise on the biological view of a certain topic them Wikipedia shouldn’t treat them as a good source for how biology should be.


 * It’s not against the rules to call out sources that don’t know anything about a particular topic. Like no one had an issue with me removing this one sociological book that claimed sex in humans is determined by five factors from this article.


 * with Fausto-Sterling.
 * I never said we shouldn’t have here book in here, I said that we should probably replace that source because
 * 1, that book is from 20 years ago
 * 2, I checked there are more updated versions of her book.
 * Also when I pointed out that one paragraph, I was merely saying it needs some fixing.
 * I’m not say she is wrong, I’m not saying we should remove her views, and I’m not saying she’s biased. Fix up that those paragraphs and give her views more clarification, because right now her views come off as confusing and unorganized.


 * Also the Feminism: general section itself is problematic because it uses only two sources. Like where are the other prominent feminists on this topic?
 * Also I’m pretty sure you would know that both of these individuals have their critics. And that’s not me being using a personal opinion, it’s mentioned on their Wikipedia pages.


 * So to make things easier to understand here is a list of issues.
 * Replace some of the sources with more updated versions. Because I know these books have updated versions.
 * Fix up some paragraphs so a certain scholar’s view on a topic is more clear.
 * Make sure the scholars know they have knowledge on a particular topic. Or reword it better in a way that fits the context on what they are talking about.
 * Add more sources to sections that don’t have many sources.


 * Also I kindly ask you not to use language about how this makes me want to vomit.CycoMa (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * About Butler, I would love for you to either point out a comment on biology that they are not qualified to make or consider the matter done. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * check her Wikipedia article. Judith Butler.CycoMa (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Is that a reply to my comment? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes.CycoMa (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that Butler's Wikipedia page is "a comment on biology that they are not qualified to make"? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I don’t see her having any PhD relating to it, so technically yeah. Am I saying her views shouldn’t be mentioned on Wikipedia? Nope, but what is put on Wikipedia varies from context.CycoMa (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to try again and maybe be more clear. We're talking about improvements to this article. Butler certainly has expertise in many areas, but they do not have expertise in biology. You said "I don’t understand why this article should treat an individual like her as expert on the biological view of sex". I am asking: what text in this article is treating Butler as an expert on the biological view of sex? What biology-specific comment are they making? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I guess her comment is fine for the moment, although here interpretation of the matter comes of as a little anti biology.CycoMa (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Also not to mention the feminist section is problematic because I know that feminists were the ones who brought forth this distinction. The whole section comes off as criticizing the distinction rather than supporting it.
 * It’s weird that basically all of the feminists in that section are basically arguing sex and gender are vague or socially constructed concepts.
 * When I know there are indeed feminists who might disagree with that.CycoMa (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * There's too much to respond to (that seems to be a pattern) but here's a selection:
 * It's irrelevant whether she is an expert on biology. This article is not an article on biology. Did you skip the whole section above where I tried to explain how this is an article about a distinction? Why do you keep coming back to "she's not an expert on biology", when that's not what this article is about?
 * Seems mostly a repetition of your previous point. And it absolutely *does* matter if she is an expert on the distinction between sex and gender, because this article is entitled, "Sex and gender distinction"; your comment that it doesn't matter is bizarre.
 * True enough, but that's addressing the issue of reliability in context, so a valid discussion. I'm repeating myself, but if you attempt to claim that Judith Butler is not knowledgeable about the sex and gender distinction, the laughter will be deafening. Nobody cares if she is a biological expert; that's not what this article is about.
 * Regarding your comment about older versions of the F-S book:
 * I have no objection to using a newer edition; that would be an improvement.
 * I'm all for clarification. If you edit the article for that purpose, please put "clarification" or "fix confusing paragraphs" or similar in the edit summary, and link the summary to this discussion, if you don't mind. (You can even use a hash tag right in the summary, like #FsDisorgClarify, and you'll come right back to this spot in an on-page search.)
 * WP:SOFIXIT.
 * From your List of issues, bullets 1, 2, and 4 sound fine to me. Your bullet 3, however:
 * I think that's a stretch. If they are published in reliable sources on the topic, and represent a majority or minority viewpoint, then that's not something we should be doing. If you want to do a reliability challenge for a particular author in context, you could try the WP:RSN, and please link the discussion here.
 * I feel like I'm repeating myself to a certain extent, so I may bow out of future discussion on this, unless I see something completely new and on-topic, that would benefit the article by my reply, so please don't take offense if you follow up, and I don't comment. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm all for clarification. If you edit the article for that purpose, please put "clarification" or "fix confusing paragraphs" or similar in the edit summary, and link the summary to this discussion, if you don't mind. (You can even use a hash tag right in the summary, like #FsDisorgClarify, and you'll come right back to this spot in an on-page search.)
 * WP:SOFIXIT.
 * From your List of issues, bullets 1, 2, and 4 sound fine to me. Your bullet 3, however:
 * I think that's a stretch. If they are published in reliable sources on the topic, and represent a majority or minority viewpoint, then that's not something we should be doing. If you want to do a reliability challenge for a particular author in context, you could try the WP:RSN, and please link the discussion here.
 * I feel like I'm repeating myself to a certain extent, so I may bow out of future discussion on this, unless I see something completely new and on-topic, that would benefit the article by my reply, so please don't take offense if you follow up, and I don't comment. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that's a stretch. If they are published in reliable sources on the topic, and represent a majority or minority viewpoint, then that's not something we should be doing. If you want to do a reliability challenge for a particular author in context, you could try the WP:RSN, and please link the discussion here.
 * I feel like I'm repeating myself to a certain extent, so I may bow out of future discussion on this, unless I see something completely new and on-topic, that would benefit the article by my reply, so please don't take offense if you follow up, and I don't comment. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I guess Judith Butler’s comments are fine for the moment, her comments appear to fit the context of the article.CycoMa (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Linguistic differences in gender and sex bias
In the 2nd paragraph, it is stated that "there isn't any real difference between gender bias and sex bias". The source(39) does not seem to confirm this. I have not found any academic sources that prove this statement to be accurate. Am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConfusedPersonne (talk • contribs) 01:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The citation was wrong. The text is a quote from the gender entry of the American Heritage Dictionary (old ref had it as part of sex). Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m making subsection
I’m making subsections because at times the definitions use by various groups and organizations contradict each other at times. It also makes things easier to navigate through.CycoMa (talk) 03:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah regarding that sexual continuum
I’m just putting this comment down because I know there might be an edit war over this sentence. undefined

Keep in mind the book cited in that sentence was written by philosophers in science and biology.

So I’m gonna present what the sources say on the matter. I think this chapter from Richard Dawkins book explains thing. Here’s a link to a free version of his book if you are interested.(his book is mentioned here in the article.)

Also here are some free sources on the matter if you are interested check out this, this, this, and this. I have more sources on this.(which unfortunately aren’t free.)

Also I found this essay on the matter. (Here is a free version of it) The individual who written this also a philosopher in biology.(I can’t say if her views 100% align with mainstream biology since she is mostly a philosopher.)

The whole gamete size view may seem weird but keep in mind according to this source this is considered the fundamental difference.(it does mention there is some debate on some aspects of this topic tho.)

I was thinking about quoting the individuals but I don’t want this comment to be too long. I understand this may be controversial but keep in mind this is clearly a mainstream view.CycoMa (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of sources! I would prefer for now to focus on the Borghini source. Are we looking at the same page? The quote I see, a footnote, says "It seems important to point out that, as reported by Touraille (2011), although Fausto-Sterling's proposal has had a great resonance within gender studies, it did not have the same resonance within the community of biologists." I believe my tweaks to your edit are appropriate: Are we interpreting that line differently, or did you have a different part of the book in mind? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I understand that we shouldn’t copy edit, but I didn’t want to distort what the guy was saying on the matter. Maybe we are interpreting the source differently.
 * Maybe it would be better to cite what Priscille Touraille says on the matter, but I can’t tell where they got that information from.


 * Also the sources cited in the biologists section say are two sexes in most species. They also address the thing about how male and female are actually classified.CycoMa (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually I think your change was fine, I’m gonna keep it like that for the moment until I find where they got that information from.CycoMa (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I also thought go right to Touraille. Touraille (2011) might be this journal-published interview between her and Fausto-Sterling in French. I had to muddle through with my limited french skills and some machine translation, but it seems less clear about the continuum idea's prominence in biological circles than the Borghini book's footnote. There may be another Touraille 2011 that the book is actually referring to. I want to resist muddying the waters here with what biologists say about the sexes in general. Are they directly commenting on Fausto-Sterling's reception by biologists? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I like your recent edit's use of same. Can I propose a little flip-around to reduce the repetition of prominence? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I do like your idea in that.CycoMa (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure about this paragraph
The case of David Reimer, who was raised as a girl after a botched circumcision, was described in the book As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl. Reimer was in fact not comfortable as a girl and later confirmed his innate gender identity, changing his presentation back to male when he discovered the truth of his surgery. He eventually committed suicide.[12]

I’m not entirely sure this paragraph is related to the subject of the article to be honest. A part of me is telling myself it belongs and another side of me is telling myself it doesn’t belong here.

I’m just gonna wait and see what other editors think.CycoMa (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Let’s not define sex and gender in the lead
I’m against defining sex and gender in lead. Because the definition of both of these varies from different fields in academia and who you ask. This article addresses the topic from biology, sociology, medical, activism, and etc. These various groups don’t always agree with each other definitions, so defining what sex and gender is in the lead adds more confusion to matter.CycoMa (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay look, adding definitions to the lead isn’t ideal here. Look at the section on biology and look at the Public health organizations part. Notice how those contradict each other.CycoMa (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , there are some issues with this. For one, the World Health Organization is not the best source - definitions that they find useful don't necessarily match what science considers most accurate. We should not be implying that intersex is a third sex, or that people are assigned that as a sex at birth. Intersex conditions, also known as disorders of sex development, are in fact sex-specific. As far as the genders listed, man and boy are the same gender, as are woman and girl. It is WP:UNDUE to list specific nonbinary identities, given that all of these are under the nonbinary umbrella and the small population sizes. Crossroads -talk- 18:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I did not add any references... Tewdar (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it is useful to point out, in the lead, that a majority of those who talk about a sex-gender distinction are highlighting a difference between biological attributes on the one hand, and sociological or psychological on the other.


 * You can be assigned intersex at birth.


 * Man and boy are examples of different genders.


 * I have no objection to "male, female, or nonbinary" as gender examples in the lead. Tewdar (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry I made it seem like you did add that reference. For future use, this source may be useful. It's a WP:MEDRS review article, super recent, and very careful in how it defines all the various terms related to this subject.
 * I have not heard of "intersex" being assigned at birth as a sex. Being diagnosed with such a condition, sure, but that's different - that's not recognition of intersex as a sex. It is not.
 * Can you clarify "Man and boy are examples of different genders"? Man and boy are part of the same male gender. Crossroads -talk- 18:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Current lede "The sex and gender distinction refers to the conceptual differentiation of a person's sex from that person's gender." I can work that out from the page name!!! Tewdar (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Look, please understand that this article addresses a broad topic. Let me show the definitions presented here.
 * undefined
 * undefined


 * undefined


 * Notice how their definitions don’t align well with each other. Also there is a section that criticizes the distinction in general.
 * Also I don’t understand why you put sex is male, female, and intersex. Because none of the sources cited in the lead said that. This source says, undefined


 * If you want to include the mention of people being assigned intersex put it a medical section.CycoMa (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

eg "Pregnancy intentions and outcomes among transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people assigned female or intersex at birth in the United States: Results from a national, quantitative survey" Tewdar (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

All the sources defining sex differ. But they are all biological definitions. My lead mentions most of the various ways that sex may be assigned biologically (chromosomes, hormones, gonads...) Tewdar (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Um to make things clear one of the biological sources points out why defining sex by sex characteristics is problematic. Also assigned sex is primarily a medical term.CycoMa (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection to "typically male or female" in the definition of sex in the lede, removing intersex is fine if it's objectionable. Tewdar (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Plus I don’t understand why you say typically. That seems like original research.CycoMa (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * When I say "male, female, or intersex", you don't like intersex. When I remove intersex and suggest "typically male or female", you play the original research card! Do you really need me to provide a source that says humans are typically assigned male or female at birth? Tewdar (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Um this source is currently source number [3] in the lead.
 * Come to think of it I suspect there may be some original research in the lead. I think someone look at various sources without understanding how they align with each other.
 * But, anyway maybe you could put assigned intersex at sex assignment if you like. I’m just not sure it’s appropriate here.CycoMa (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

For example, a trans man may identify as a man,not a boy. Thus his gender identity is "man", not "boy".

A trans boy may identify as a boy. Thus his gender identity is "boy", not "man".

Both examples may also identify as "male". Tewdar (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I’m just gonna say this gender identity is subjective and I’m not entirely sure that relevant to this discussion in general.CycoMa (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Crossroads asked me. Tewdar (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

How come these tiny objections you are raising are not simply edited, rather than reverting? You don't like "intersex", fine, delete it. You want to replace man-boy with male, great, do it. But the current lede is crap. It is tautologous. It tells me nothing. For a majority of sources from all disciplines making the distinction, sex == biology and gender == psychology/sociology. You can present all the details later. But instead, we ask readers to visit the sex and gender pages, where they will find out *exactly what my lede said! Tewdar (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I don’t think you understand what I’m trying to say. All I’m trying to say that sex and gender is a extremely complex topic.
 * Biologists would say a woman is a human organism that can get pregnant and give birth.
 * Psychologists would say a woman is a person who identifies as one.


 * Neither of these definitions of woman are wrong, it’s the definition of woman varies depending on context. This is the same for sex and gender, it’s all about context.
 * The biggest issue is that your edit assumes that those definitions of sex and gender fit all contexts.CycoMa (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You don't agree that the sex gender distinction is primarily seen as a distinction between biological factors and sociological /psychological factors? Because I could probably give you *hundreds* of high quality reliable sources that *all say the same thing as my lede*. It is a *summary*, not an attempt to "fit all contexts", that's what the article is for. Tewdar (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I never said that. Notice how the biological sources in the sex section define sex differently than the way you defined it.CycoMa (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also by the way humans are a gonochoric species. Gonochorism means a species has either a male or female sex. So no there are no other sexes.CycoMa (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @CycoMa I was talking about birth-assigned sex. If you don't disagree, why did you revert? Again? I thought I got rid of the objectionable parts? What didn't you like? Tewdar (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You defined sex by gonads, chromosomes, and hormones. That’s not the biological definition of sex. You also said typically male or female which is probably, since our species is gonochoric.CycoMa (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm* not defining anything! But *reliable sources making the distinction* say that sex is usually defined biologically, by size of sex cells, or by chromosomes, or hormones, or genitalia, etc. I really don't see what your problem was with the last edit, since I thought I'd removed all the stuff you objected to. *What, specifically, of the last edit I made do you object to*? Tewdar (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, this discussion is going in circles between the same two editors, which usually produces off-putting walls of text. CycoMa, you don't always need to respond so quickly. Tewdar, I'm not sure which source says "people assigned female or intersex at birth", but per WP:Due weight, sex assignment refers to assignment as male or female. I'm undecided if intersex should be mentioned in the lead, but "typically male or female" is also problematic as it implies that there are other sexes, when there aren't. Regarding "a trans man may identify as a man,not a boy. Thus his gender identity is "man", not "boy". A trans boy may identify as a boy. Thus his gender identity is "boy", not "man"", no, these are the same gender, only age is being indicated here. Gender does not change when a boy grows into a man.Since the status quo has been restored, probably for the best, Tewdar, how about proposing something based on this review article? It covers all these aspects, biological and sociological, comprehensively and in an up to date manner. Crossroads -talk- 19:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't realize the status quo had been restored until after I attempted my compromise lede. Please feel free to revert. Tewdar (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

"Tewdar, how about proposing something based on this review article? It covers all these aspects, biological and sociological, comprehensively and in an up to date manner."

No, because hours of hard work will be reverted in seconds by anyone watching this page, obviously. Tewdar (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I note that now, "gender" is explained in the lede, but "sex" is not. Hmm. Tewdar (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

From that article Crossroads linked to:

"Sex is a biological concept"

"Gender includes perception of the individual as male, female, or other, both by the individual and by society."

"A simple biological definition of male and female, satisfactory to all people, is elusive."

I agree with all these statements. Perhaps someone might summarise them and put them in the lede... Tewdar (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * When it comes to sinking hours into something on Wikipedia only to be reverted or out-discussed, trust me, I've been there. I suggested proposing something because, on Talk, we can all make suggestions and agree on it (more or less).
 * Regarding "a simple biological definition", I'll note for clarity's sake that the source also says, "Biological sex is dichotomous because of the different roles of each sex in reproduction." It goes on to explain the details. In biological terms, sex is a phenotypic trait, and is determined by multiple factors. Crossroads -talk- 20:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Look all I’m saying is that it’s not ideal to put definitions in the especially when these definitions aren’t always easy and sometimes contradict each other. It’s probably more ideal to present definitions in sections and let readers decide what sex is.CycoMa (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The lede is atrocious. It gives the reader no idea whatsoever about what the sex-gender distinction is. Apart from a distinction. Between sex and gender. Tewdar (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

"Sex" usually means biological factors. "Gender" usually means psychosocial factors. This is a summary of a wide variety of high quality, reliable sources. Tewdar (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Look at this page: Fact–value distinction. Brilliant. I know exactly what it is about right away, *even though "fact" and "value" are disputed controversial terms which is explained later*.

Look at this page: Sex and gender distinction. Dreadful. I don't know anything about it, *even after reading half of the article*.

Atrocious.


 * That’s why it’s ideal to define sex in the section. Let the readers decide for themselves what sex and gender is.CycoMa (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

"Let the readers decide for themselves what sex and gender is" - Please, edit every Wikipedia article lede so that there is no summary of the general consensus of the article content, so that readers can "decide for themselves" about... well, everything. Tewdar (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Please note that saying that sex is defined using some sort of biological features, is not itself a definition. Tewdar (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

"The distinction between sex and gender differentiates a person's sex from that person's gender" - Please, someone fix this at least, it hurts my brain and my eyes! Tewdar (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

What is the distinction between sex and gender?
Here is a list. Perhaps this will allow the article to make some generalizations in the lede. Sources are **only** added if they define **both** sex and gender in an attempt to **distinguish** or **discuss the relationship between** sex and gender, and **not used** if they only define one or the other, because this would require synthesis on our part. Please feel free to add sources to this list (perhaps CycoMa and Crossroads might like to contribute), but only if they meet the above criteria: Tewdar (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Current Wikipedia Lede


 * (Tautologous, confusing, badly worded, defines gender but not sex... Tewdar (talk) 10:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC))

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sex_and_gender_distinction&oldid=984416682


 * (The same article on 20 October 2020... Tewdar (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC))

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/whatisthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21

https://academic.oup.com/edrv/article/42/3/219/6159361

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/gender-identity/sex-gender-identity

https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-sex-and-gender-which-are-not-the-same-thing-influence-our-health.html

https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/difference-between-sex-and-gender

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1948550620937188

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n735

|"Sex, Gender and Society" - Ann Oakley pg 158

https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756384/obo-9780199756384-0153.xml


 * (What an excellent summary, if only the Wikipedia article could aim for something like that... Tewdar (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC))

https://amp.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2014/feb/07/mind-your-language-transgender

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109715073556

https://academic.oup.com/edrv/article/39/4/424/4967741

https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118924396.wbiea1393


 * (another excellent summary of this topic Tewdar (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC))

https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/188411


 * (Alright, it's an undergraduate thesis. But even this, a "Derridean critique", manages to tell us what the distinction *is* before brutally deconstructing it. Sadly, Wikipedia does not... Tewdar (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC))

Comment by Newimpartial - it would be off-brand for me not to point to the framework used by Statistics Canada to collect demographic data for sex and gender, set out here. Among its carefully-wrought language:

Also note that Statistics Canada recognizes but does not use the definition of gender by the WHO as the socially constructed characteristics of men and women. Gender for statistics Canada is classified as Male, Female, or Gender diverse, while sex has two classifications for these demographers: Male/Female, and Male/Female/Intersex - surely the latter was adopted solely to annoy certain denizens of the internet who edit Wikipedia. Newimpartial (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)