Talk:Sex organ

message: Discuss the proposed name change here.
We need to reconcile this with the "category:sexaul anatomy". -- Fplay 14:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Object: I don't think that it is a good idea to change an article's name to suit a category's name. Also, sexual anatomy is not equivalent to sex organ. If the sexual anatomy category needs a head article, I suggest one be created at sexual anatomy, which is current a redirect to this article. If the reason for the move was explained more, I would reconsider my position. -- Kjkolb 09:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Object as above - that alone is definitely not a reason to move the page; especially since "sexual anatomy" seems to me not quite such an appropriate title. -- John Smythe 19:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Apologies if there is a better, higher-level forum for discussion of this issue.
I've looked over a great deal of the wikipedia pages about human genitalia, as well as the wiki commons photos in those categories. One of the most striking aspects is that almost all of the photos are of "white" people (or caucasians or people of recent European ancestry if you prefer). Obviously, wikipedia can't go around commissioning photos of a more diverse set of genitalia, but this is a problem that needs to be addressed somehow. Wikipedia is for all of humanity and is supposed to be about all of humanity. I realize that white people are probably the vast majority of readers and contributors to the English language wikipedia, but there really needs to be an effort to show a much greater variety of genitalia. The disparity is greatest in terms of the "racial" diversity of genital images. However, just as important, is simple structural diversity. There is high variability among genital appearances, even when restricted to totally functional genitals. There are all sorts of sizes and shapes of penises and foreskins and labia and clitorises, etc. It is misleading and unjust to include only a few images of genitalia, especially when they tend to be white and tend to be within a fairly narrow range of what is considered "normal". This true of all parts of the human body, but is especially true for genitals because, unlike faces, people don't readily see others' genitals and so they aren't exposed to the same diversity in their daily lives. The importance of this is further magnified because of the relatively high importance of genitals to people's identity and self esteem. For example, many studies have shown that increased penis length is associated with higher self-esteem, at least in the US in recent times. This is totally a cultural value and is not universal in time or space. If there were a broader understanding and acceptance of diversity of genital appearance, I think that a lot of people might feel better about themselves and their sexuality and would be more positive about variability in others as well. See wikipedia pages about labiaplasty and vaginoplasty for more info (though way too brief) about the normalization of genitalia and the increasingly narrow definition of what is considered normal and beautiful or sexy. --Prepuce4Life (talk) 08:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with what Prepuce4Life wrote above. Since an encyclopedia is ideally impartial in tone and content, I replaced the  idealized (likely labiaplasty) image of a vulva with a more typical example that was already in Wikimedia Commons. I had considered it an obvious improvement, more informative, and less biased, but perhaps I was mistaken as it was reverted by User:TBM10 with a comment to please discuss on Talk first. I apologize for the breach in protocol. What is  the reasoning for keeping the current image ("Vulva with tiny labia and shaved pubic hair")? Ben (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hackerb9 (Ben), this is a years old section. New comments in a years old section are commonly ignored. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout (what it states about newer sections going at the bottom). The only reason I saw your latest comment is because this article is on my watchlist. Anyway, at different Wikipedia articles, the justification for keeping an image of a shaved vulva has been that the anatomical parts can be easily seen. In cases like the Vulva article, though, we've opted to have a lead image that shows shaved and unshaved vulvae; same goes for diversity lower in that article. For the Sex organ article, we don't need as many images. Just one to show the male genitals and one to show the female genitals. On Wikipedia, there is always discord over whether or not to have a shaved or unshaved vulva, or a circumcised or uncircumcised penis, as an image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, User:Flyer22 Reborn. I had not known about always posting at the bottom of the page and had mistakenly assumed anyone interested would have the page on their watchlist. Ben (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Diversity

message: Just wanted to point out that there is an indirect self-link...
--Sgeo | Talk 00:18, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indirect self-link 

message: Everything from fungi to plants to animals have sex organs, and yet we have this page, which narrowly explores the human sex organs with minor lip-service to the existence of anything else. I'd like to remove this bias and expand the coverage, but I'd like to get opinions on the best way to do that. We could:
# Expand this article, covering general topics first, then narrowing by kingdom, and within each kingdom citing a few examples (humans would be one of the examples in the animal kingdom).
# The article could be shortened to just a general overview of the concept with links to the specific articles for each kingdom.
# A hybrid approach would be to write the general section, follow it with a very short section for each kingdom, but have links at the top of each kingdom section for the detailed article.
Thoughts?
Here's what I have in mind for the flowering plant section, just to give an idea:
:Sexual reproduction in flowering plants involves the union of the male and female germ cells. The sex organs, contained within the flower, may contain both male and female sex organs (these are known as perfect, bisexual, or hermaphrodite) or only one of the two (known as imperfect or unisexual). Also, thos plants whose flowers are unisexual may contain both male and female flowers, or there may be purely male and female plants of the same species.
:During a plant's sexual reproduction the stamen (male sex organ) produces pollen from an anther. These male germ cells are carried to the pistil (female sex organ), with the ovary at its base where fertilization can take place. The male germ cells can be carried by air, rain, water, insects or other symbiotic animals, or simply by gravity.
::I don't know how old this message is, as it is unsigned, but I thought it was about time somebody made a start on this. I have used the suggested text to make a section on flowering plants. I didn't add fungi or anything else as I don't think I could write decent sections on this. Instead I have rearranged the section structure to make this sort of thing easier to add and tagged for expert help.
::I have also cut the three identical images of the human penis down to one occurance. We wouldn't want people to think we are obsessed or anything ;-) .
::My view is that we need to cover everything here. I don't mind mammals and humans being given some overcoverage as much as I mind everything else being almost completely missing. My vote is just to expand the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the human bias 

message: Reproductive_system includes all sex organs. Biology experts there try to merge this article into reproductive system.Lara_bran 13:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge this article into "reproductive system" 

message: I rempoved the "citation needed"-template for brain differentiation, because it is only a summary of what is said about that in Sexual differentiation and its subpages, e.g. Sex and intelligence and Biology of gender. I prefer the template is better placed at the individual differentiation, because there are two many examples of the phenomenon to put the it all into dispute. Mikael Häggström 07:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of cn 

message: Please see the discussion at Talk:Human height#Listing of female and male.  68.163.233.173 21:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV template

message: Is there a special name for the entire external male reproductive apparatus? Penis and scrotum each refer only to specific parts of it. Is there a word for these 2 parts viewed as a whole? (Please excuse my obsession with precise definitions.)Bostoner (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "male genitalia" (or "genitals") is what you are looking for. Unfortunately, the term has multiple meanings in this context, unlike "vulva". There are better words I can think of, but they are slang. ("He was caught adjusting his junk in front of the dignitary.") Ben (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: 1. The female reproductive organ is the ovary.
2. The major parts of the reproductive system are: ovary,uterus,fallopian tubes and cervix...                                                                                       3. The female has two ovaries. Each ovary is attached on either sides of the uterus.                                                                                         4. The arms of the fallopian tubes of the uterus cervix over to meet the ovaries.                                                                                        5. Ovaries make and store one or egg cell.                                                                                           6. The release of an ovum or egg cell from the ovary is called ovulation..                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          --------------------                                                                                                      Remember:                                                                                              All of these info/s are true.... make use of my post and yuo will get perfect in your science quiz... this info/s are for grades 3-6.... and other grades whe nthey have this articles..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psalm345 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science Concepts  

message: Don't think so, regardless of how it's used. The closest you could get is the cloaca in certain species if the suggestion about human-centrism is ever acted on. Yellowdesk60 (talk) 07:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anus a sex organ? 

message: I changed the image to :File:Pubic hair.jpg but found out that this image file is restricted to prevent it from being used in articles it doesn't belong.  I have made a request to allow this image to be used in this article.  I is a better counterpart to the male image that is used in the article. 72.95.95.102 (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of female sex organ. 

message: The vaginal entrance may be just about visible, but the vagina itself is not pictured, therefore the picture should be relabelled as depicting the female vulva, rather than the vagina.
:I have changed it now. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Any reason why the female image is half as large as the image of male genitals, and zoomed out about 5x as well?  The female genitals are actually barely visible, and occupy literally about 1/100th of the page space devoted to male genitals in this article.  Surely a better image can be found, one that actually depicts the sex organs clearly?  Blackworm (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image shows a vulva, not a vagina 

message: The article speaks about the primary sexual organs as the organs visible at the outside and of the secundary organs as being the gonads ie not visible.
Embryologically however the body starts with the gonads that produce the hormones necessary to form the other sexual organs. These are therefore the primary sexual organs.
--DrJos (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary, secundary 

message: I have noticed that particularly in the English language, some of the most offensive swear words are synonyms for genitals i.e. cunt. Why are genitals considered so offensive? Pass a Method talk 11:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a very good and relevant question! It doesn't make any obvious sense to me either. I can find nothing bad or evil in genitals – for God's sake, they are absolutely central to most of Life and for us being here, and furthermore they are a source of great joy for most of us. Also, calling a person a "flower" is quite positive, but calling a woman a "cunt" is the opposite, even though both words refer to sexual organs. So it would be very interesting to have a section about that if someone would like to explore the question and write about it, with references to possible explanations given in the literature. My personal guess at an explanation is that it could be related to the widespread sexual taboo in Western culture and perhaps negative commandmends about sexuality is various religions, perhaps especially in Catholicism, but that's just me thinking that. I would look forward to reading a well-referenced section about this subject. --Jhertel (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  calling them a flower is not referring to their sex organs.  But onto the main question: Why are genitals considered so offensive?  Dude: check yours out:  would you like to meet that in the street?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.226.109 (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are genitals considered offensive? 

message: Iztwoz, regarding this, "primary sexual characteristic" redirects to this article. So it seems best to keep it in the lead. It seems to have been added to the lead per WP:Alternative title. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Flyer22 Reborn I am not too familiar with these topics and have read different things regarding the terminology. I know that there is more than one reference (Wiki) to primary sex organs and secondary sex characteristics; and another stating that (paraphrasing) these terms of secondary sex organs and secondary sex characteristics are interchangeable. Also it was wrongly placed in the first sentence which stated that a sex organ was a primary sexual characteristic  because it can also be a secondary sex characteristic I changed it and added the two refs to prim and sec organs to cover this; as it was it cannot be an alternative title. ? --Iztwoz (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just had a look at the page secondary sexual characteristics which gives a different slant to things entirely. Suggest we both do some looking up on this.--Iztwoz (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Think its OK now, cheers --Iztwoz (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's fine. Primary sexual characteristics are the ones we are born with, the ones before puberty. I'm not aware of any reliable sources stating that secondary sex organs and secondary sex characteristics are the same thing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I came across one ref to their being the same (don't remember where) but couldn't find it elsewhere and doesn't make sense anyway. so think its OK now. --Iztwoz (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Primary sexual characteristic" term 

message: I reverted ArnoldReinhold on this edit because "genitalia" does not only refer to the external genitalia (the Sex organ article makes this clear), and there can be no doubt that people are not only thinking about the vulva when they read or hear "female genitalia"; they are thinking about the vagina as well. In fact, given how much more attention the vagina gets (including when it comes to female genital terminology), many people are more likely thinking about the vagina than the vulva when they read or hear "female genitalia." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but almost all the articles that have redirects to female genitalia intend the human female genitalia, so sex organ is a poor target since it isn't even gender specific. One possibility is to redirect  female genitalia to Female reproductive system, which is where human female genitalia redirects. Another would be edit all the pages that link to female genitalia to instead link to the most appropriate target for each article, e.g. Sex in advertising clearly is talking about the vulva. Incidentally, the vulva article should have an "other mammals" section or state that it is only talking about humans, as Female reproductive system already does..--agr (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Inconsistencies with redirects can be a pain. But, in this case, "female genitalia" redirecting here while "human female genitalia" redirects to the Female reproductive system article makes sense because the Female reproductive system article is (so far) solely about humans. This article, on the other hand, is obviously not solely about humans. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female genitalia redirect 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sex organ. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120728014926/http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/Bio106/mosses.htm to http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/Bio106/mosses.htm
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) 08:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jeni'tulz. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  gnu57 18:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeni'tulz listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: This article has too much of a focus on humans.CycoMa (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus too much on humans 

message: CycoMa, do I have it right that you intend to make a genitalia article? That is extremely unnecessary since this sex organ article exists. I point you to WP:REDUNDANTFORK. If you create it, I'll request a merge. GBFEE (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sex organ and genitalia are related but the article on genitalia goes more in depth on genitalia. Also not all sex organs are part of genitalia, genitalia is basically the external sex organs.CycoMa (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Like the genitalia draft also discusses the evolution of genitalia.CycoMa (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not given any good reason for wanting to create a genitalia article when the sex organ article addresses both external and internal sex organs, and both characteristics can be sufficiently covered in this article. You say "Sex organ and genitalia are related." No, not just "related." Sex organ refers to either the external or internal sex organs. It's not necessary to have both a genitalia and internal sex organ article while the sex organ article exists, and it's not necessary to have both a sex organ and genitalia article. Having a sex organ article and a genitalia article would almost convey that the sex organ article is for the internal sex organs and the genitalia article is for the external sex organs. An additional article should only be created when its creation is necessary. GBFEE (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There are tons of sources that go in depth on the evolution of genitalia across species. It just seems inappropriate to have a section of genital evolution here. Because genitalia is specifically referring to external sex organs.CycoMa (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Then create an Evolution of genitalia article and link to it here. Problem solved. GBFEE (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Per WP:SUMMARY, it can have a brief section here that links to the main page on the topic. Can you agree to that? GBFEE (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The genitalia article is also gonna probably go in depth on types of genitalia. Because genitalia is diverse across species.CycoMa (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't think the extra article should be created. In the same way you can expand on the external sex organs here, you can expand on the internal sex organs here. I'll drop a line at WP:ANAT for their opinions. GBFEE (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

text: CycoMa, GBFEE is right. Such an article would be a fork. Please do not create duplicate or redundant articles and stick to existing ones, only splitting per WP:SIZESPLIT and related guidelines. Crossroads -talk- 20:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Draft:Genitalia]] 

message: Mammals are merely a minority in the animal kingdom.CycoMa (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: But most sources about sex organs are about mammals. I think most people who come to the article will be looking for that information. If helpful or necessary for a more well-rounded article, we can create sections for other categories of animal. There's already a section for other animals, and we have one on plants. GBFEE (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes no sense to have a section for mammals and a section called other animals. I’m just gonna merge those two sections together.CycoMa (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It does if most of the material about animals is about mammals and we want a dedicated section for mammals that doesn't seem to hog space under an "Animals" heading that also features other animals. However, I think your merge is okay. GBFEE (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There are tons of articles that link here. From articles on fishes, flowers, and etc. Also there are fungi that have sex organs.CycoMa (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What does that have to do with what I said? If a topic covers one animal category more than others, there isn't anything we can do about it except follow the due process. Well, unless you want to add a lot more on other animals and plants for "balancing", but that's forcing "balance." Balance should come organically. GBFEE (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  It isn't ideal to have a section in mammals 

message: I'm curious 58.227.208.200 (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have a section specifically for humans so I am not sure where it would go. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

text: It sounds like you're asking if the sex organ can be pierced. You said, "I'm curious." See genital piercing and genital modification and mutilation. If we included any information on that in this article, it wouldn't require a whole section. A little paragraph is all it'd need. GBFEE (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we do piercing on this?