Yes, I do realize a lot of people made contributions to the article when I approached it. This is why I made a lot of effort to get other opinions on the rewrite and what the article should cover. See Talk:Sex#Rewrite of article, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology#Sex, and Wikipedia talk:Version_1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics#Sex. No secret has been made of this rewrite—you can see how difficult it has been to get feedback. This article obviously had no "steward", as you so aptly describe on your userpage. I chose to become that steward when I proposed and made the rewrite. I would eventually like to take this core article to FA and it's been difficult to get any feedback.
Perhaps you didn't realize it, but a "see also" section is deprecated, material should be covered within the body of the article. This came up during the Genetics FAC. I'm sorry your link got removed; I thought I had covered everything in the article. As I noted on the talk page, I think the article should have a top level section on evolution and I think this link could eventually go in there.
I like you. I'm surprised, hurt, and disappointed that you're so quick to be angry with me. In my past experience (and up to now with the Sex article), I've been too hesitant to throw away old material and too slow to rewrite. Because I got no response to my proposal, and because the article was so poorly written, I went ahead and did it. Wikipedia encourages us to be bold. , who works on Gender, seemed happy with it.   ✉ ✍