Talk:Sex differences in human physiology

message: These are feminist ideological texts which may or may not align with mainstream consensus with broad spectrum of views of medical and biological practitioners. If their views are representative of wider consensus, it should be trivial to replace them with texts that are not ideological screeds. 87.113.27.52 (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:BIASED. That the texts are feminist is not an issue. They are academic and considered WP:RS. They are not WP:FRINGE.  EvergreenFir (talk) Please  18:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that Blanchard, Bailey and Zucker are academics who have doubtlessly published numerous sources. From what I can see (quite rightly) that the Transsexual does not treat their work uncritically. Anne Fausto-Sterling is a Professor of Biology and Gender Studies. That second field is of a political nature. Yes, the fact they are feminist certainly is an issue: science is not an ideology. It is not appropriate to have political texts as sources in a scientific article. 87.113.27.52 (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I really need to make an FAQ about this. That an academic is feminist does not mean their work is not scientific. Science is based on ideology and ontology (hence the philosophy of science). Social sciences and interdisciplinary scholars (biology and gender studies in this case) cannot be excluded because you disagree with their world views. Again the sources are allowed to take a stance (WP:BIASED), we must reflect those source neutrally (WP:NPOV). EvergreenFir (talk) Please  20:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fausto-Sterling and Birke as sources 

message: The article states "The female orgasm was believed to have no obvious function other than to be pleasurable although some evidence suggests that it may have evolved as a discriminatory advantage in regards to mate selection". However, the article Vaginal contraction states "It has been suggested that vaginal contractions during orgasm can increase the chances of pregnancy as they transport sperm up the reproductive tract from the vagina to the oviducts, which decreases the distance it has to travel. Additionally, when the woman is fertile sperm is only transported to the side of the dominant ovary". So should this suggestion be included as a further possibility? Coyets (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, the article Cervix states "A theory states the cervical and uterine contractions during orgasm draw semen into the uterus. Although the "upsuck theory" has been generally accepted for some years, it has been disputed due to lack of evidence, small sample size, and methodological errors". So this seems to be a disputed theory, but one possibly worth mentioning. Coyets (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

text: I am no expert on the subject, and I don't have a source, but it seems that an obvious evolutionary advantage of female orgasm is that the contractions and other climactic motions could stimulate males to orgasm.  Is this too obvious to mention?  I must not be the first person to notice that one partner's orgasm can trigger the other's! -- ☑ SamuelWantman 02:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual organs and reproductive systems 

message: A fantastic paper was published only a few days ago - April 4th, 2017 - which concerned the largest single-sample study of structural and functional sex differences in the human brain to date (over 5,000 subjects).  This wiki page is really quite detailed already, and I haven't yet parsed both the paper and this page well enough to determine what exactly, if anything, needs to be added or changed... but I figured this paper might come in handy for anyone with an interest in this subject.  The paper has a great deal of information about specific connectivity and structural differences in various subregions of the brain.  It's titled "Sex Differences In The Adult Human Brain: Evidence From 5,216 UK Biobank Participants"  http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/04/04/123729
Bzzzing (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newest research on Sex differences in the Human Brain 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sex differences in human physiology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/310/63
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604094727/https://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10042&mode=toc to https://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10042&mode=toc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I tried the last link, link 125, but it sent me to a 404 on the CIA website.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.117.124 (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last link broken? 

message: Many sources for average measurements take into account only the United States. They should be replaced with data that represents the whole world. 31.217.18.135 (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  US bias in sources 

message: The difference in breasts is mentioned in the introduction of the article very briefly, as part of a single sentence. It is significant to note, however, that humans are the only mammals in which the female has permanent breasts - in all other species, visible breasts are associated with pregnancy/being with young, and actually a signal of (temporary) infertility. Humans have evolved to make this signal permanent, and this bit of sexual dimorphism is unique to us. It deserves a mention. Tsuka (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of permanent breasts? 

message: The lead only uses like one source. It just looks someone was making stuff up here.CycoMa (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Leads are not normally sourced unless there is something particularly controversial. They are supposed to be summaries of the sourced content in the articles' bodies. Is there something in this lead that you are questioning because it is not sourced in the body or that you find particularly controversial? Meters (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead needs more sources 

message: I researched gender differences in vision today. Here's a review article I found. It's not very concise, but there might be some info in there worth adding to this article. There are also a bunch of non-medical articles floating around on this topic, which suggests to me that we should say something, even if it is "the idea of gender differences in vision is controversial and not well-supported". Let me know your thoughts. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is something else I'm looking at. Thanks for the resource. GBFEE (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender differences in vision 

message: I'll be adding resources to each section, and sometimes this means replacing resources in a section. I added a resource about finger length to the section on size, weight and body shape, but I found when gathering resources, it's not an easy section to source.. Some things in it might need to be removed or reworded. GBFEE (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size, weight and body shape section 

message: In November, I said, "I put together everything already for the whole page, but I want to go over it slower instead of with one fell swoop since it has a tag for original research. I also want to mind the synthesis guidance." 
I'm still holding off upgrading the page all at once, although it's difficult to hold off because there's a bit of eagerness and pride to just finish it already. I also want to give other pages my full focus. But I hear that "patience is a virtue" goes a long way. So I'm following that practice. I'll continue to work on each section one by one to make sure everything is the best it can be. Journal resources, and not only books, will also be used. GBFEE (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completing page and removing the original research tag 

message: What is the published reference for the 'direct and indirect' sex differences terminology in the lede? It appears to have been added over a decade ago in this diff.  Tewdar  15:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, this appears to be discussed above. Perhaps I'll join in there.  Tewdar  09:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

text: So, I changed most of the lede. I am quite surprised that I have not been either reverted, thanked, or shouted at by now. Are you all waiting until I fall asleep or something?  Tewdar  20:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Easier to read the lede now, thank you. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally, some recognition. 😂👍  Tewdar  15:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "These can be of several types, including direct and indirect" 

message: The redirect Female anatomy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Female anatomy]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]