Talk:Secondary sex characteristic

message: I have come across two competing definitions of primary/secondary sexual traits.  One is that which is mentioned.  The other one says that primary sexual traits are those initially established during development (gonads), and that secondary sexual characteristics are those that are due to hormones (etc.) produced by the primary sexual organs.  This definition would lump external genitalia in with secondary characteristics.  I asked a geneticist which one was correct and he claimed that the latter definition was the correct one.  Does anybody know more about this? 
--------
This article describes secondary sex characteristics in terms of what is unique to a given sex and which provides competitive advantage for sexual selection.  But I had been under the impression that pubic hair in humans was considered a secondary sex characteristic (and adult humans of both sexes have it).  Is this not true?
:Well, it's at odds with the definition, anyway.I believe it's a sex characteristic, though, since it protects the organs(?), sends out pheromones etc.
--------
I would like to merge this to adolescence article since the article discusses change in body among them. I know the article can develop to contain more detailed medical stuff, but there is no gurantee that such will happen. We can split it off later again, if needed -- Taku 23:20 23 May 2003 (UTC)
: I disagree. The link from chicken sexer makes more sense this way, and I'd imagine other articles would too. Kent Wang 07:02, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Those pictures of the humans have some weird connotations. I'm reminded of the racist history of anthropology and science. Mx. Terra 16:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: This article demensrates two very bad habits: placing a heading in a sentence, and not linking jargon.
By "placing a heading in a sentence", I mean taking the beginning of a sentence and turning it into a heading, such as: == At MIT ==, the usage of foobar is prevelent. When rendered, the comma begins the first line and hurts readability.
Anybody who doesn't know names of genes or detailed human anatomy will understand what I mean "not linking jargon." ("What is a germ cell? Aren't germs bad?")
--Astronouth7303 04:31, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Wikitax 

message: Secondary sex characteristics include the tusks of sea lions, the plumage of many male birds, the chemical indicators of many insects, etc. And yet this article is entirely focused on human beings. I understand why this bias creeps in, after all, every single Wikipedia editor is a human, but this page should either move to Human secondary sex characteristic(s) (to be replaced by a more species-neutral article under this name) or it should include treatment of the general medical term. I'd be bold, but my current dispute on Sexual characteristics would likely follow me here if I did. Can someone with some bio background or some good, authoritative references update the page? Thanks -Harmil 22:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, there should be a lot more material on non-human species here. -- Beland 06:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human-centricity 

message: Are the differing life expectancies of human males and females representative of secondary sex characteristics?  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe no, because it's not physical. ― LADY GALAXY ★彡  Refill/lol 04:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I meant it's not physical like an arm or something.... it's just like you die and that's it, how is that a characteristic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Why sigh, cutie pie? (talk • contribs) 04:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dumb question. 

message: Oh my god, would someone please replace those picures with something more eye-pleasing? 
Jernejl 21:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pictures 

message: The new pictures are horrible. The old ones were better as they were big enough and so were not fuzzy and filled up the page
:I'm happy to see that the pictures are back in the page. They are informative and should stay. Mikael Häggström 18:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree. Pete.Hurd 05:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. Also it seems misleading to label the female head hair, implying that the longer hair is a sex characteristic, when obviously that is a gender role issue, not a biological difference. Mdwh 16:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Why is that relevant? 76.233.78.160 (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE pictures 

message: Secondary sex characteristics manifest in all humans post-puberty. Because this is not an article strictly on sexual dimorphism or "difference" (which is covered elsewhere), but by its title suggests it will discuss sex characteristics that are considered "secondary" to reproduction but that develop after puberty, some of the article seems misleading, off-topic, and, frankly, sex/gender-biased, particularly in its use of structure and grammar.
I think that when one reads the section under "In humans" titled "Male," one naturally reads the superlatives/comparatives in relation to males before puberty, not in relation to women or "females," who have not yet been described in the article. Structure dictates this reading of grammar. So, men, after puberty, develop "more hair on other parts of body," get "taller/broader/heavier," etc., than they were before puberty. Thus the superlatives/comparatives function to describe secondary sex characteristics, not sexual "difference."
Using similar superlatives/comparatives in the section "Female" seems to have a different effect. The implication here, because of the structure of the article, is not that women's secondary sex characteristics are being defined grammatically against pre-pubescent female physical characteristics, but that they are being defined against male secondary sex characteristics. So the comparatives are meant to function differently -- to describe "difference," not secondary sex characteristics -- and also end up being, to my mind, confusing as well as in fact sex/gender-biased. E.g.: are women shorter or do they have higher-pitched voices after reaching sexual maturity than before it? Do they manifest less body hair as a secondary sex characteristic? No; thus "higher voice" is not really a secondary sex characteristic, though it might be a way of describing sexual "difference" in humans generally. Some superlatives under "Female" ("wider" for hips, e.g.) make sense as descriptors of secondary sex characteristics, but I would argue for removing the comparatives insofar as they compare male and female secondary sex characteristics in order to better reflect the topic and logical structure of the article.
I am going to go ahead and make the described changes. If this bothers you, go ahead and change it back. This is my first foray into editing Wikipedia articles or getting involved at all with their quality, so I apologize in advance if my changes or approach prove problematic. 
Final question: why does the adult human female pictured in this article lack pubic hair? Pubic hair is a secondary sex characteristic. It only makes sense to show a shaved/waxed vulva if a section is included on the trend in some Western human cultures to disguise the physical signs of adult women's sexual maturity through shaving/bleaching/waxing/etc. Obviously, the male pictured lacks chest hair, so the section could be written in a way which addresses trends and changing expectations in men's "display" or disguising of secondary sex characteristics. Finalgirl (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  the gender neutrality of grammar and those pics 

message: I did this and then was typing my rationale when I got reverted by an over-eager editor.  So here's the rationale, and lots of the discussions above had made the same point.  It is patently ridiculous to have a photo of a woman, nicely labelled as it is, on a page about secondary sex characteristics that fails to show one of the most obvious sex characteristics - her pubic hair.  For that reason, I replaced it with the best I could find - albeit a vintage photo, but at least it shows a woman with her pubic hair.  Thanks. 86.150.96.24 (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned on your talk page, how about you remain polite and find 2 pictures and put them in the talk page first instead of only putting "the best you could find" ? --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

text: How am I being impolite?  And so you are happy for a clearly non-encyclopedic photo to remain on this page?  86.150.96.24 (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Irrelevant... find 2 pictures and put them in the talk page first instead of only putting "the best you could find" ? --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my god, are you serious?  The fact that the picture is clearly non-encyclopdic is irrelevant?  That says it all.  And as for being impolite - don't you think reverting me before you'd even bothered to read my rationale wass impolite?  The best I could find was in this lot  so as you can see the choice isn't brilliant. So I did have a look.  This matter of de-pubed women's photos has been discussed on the woman page too.  It's a matter of taste but, I cannot stress this strongly enough,  does not deserve to be in a page about secondary sex charactersitics.  I feel like I am beating my head against a wall.  Have you read the comments of the editors above who say the same thing?  Whay are you so happy to have that picture rather than one that shows pubes?  'Just beacuse they match' is not good enough.  If it's unencyclopedic, it should go.  End of.  Ask Jimbo. 86.150.96.24 (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

text:  You asked a question.... "How am I being impolite?"  I said.... irrelevant..... end of discussion. Once again... find 2 pictures and put them in the talk page first instead of only putting "the best you could find" ?--CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

text:  These pictures have been there unchanged since months. Find something, put them in the talk page, let other editors decide if they merit change or not. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed NON ENCYCLOPEDIC photo 

message: Is it true that males have bigger brains than females. I know that during the debate about whether woman should get the vote in the UK about 100 years ago that it was allegedly 'proven' that men had bigger brains than women but I think that it's untrue and should be removed from the article unless the sources can be backed up. 95.146.226.45 (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2013‎ (UTC)
:The simple answer is, obviously men have bigger brains because they have bigger bodies. When it comes to ratio it is not so clear. There is a well sourced discussion of this question in Sex_differences_in_humans#Brain_size. The consensus there is no difference in ratio. Lova Falk talk 08:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of brain 

message: I would think it would be more appropriate to show two people with similar body fat percentages.18.4.2.1 (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does the waist/hip ratio picture show a thin woman and an obese man 

message: Bone structure link should not be two different links, it should be one link. I'm new here so don't know how to fix it, sorry  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaseUnSensitive (talk • contribs) 18:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Bone Structure/resolved

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Secondary sex characteristic. 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/20090208223522/http://www.hartnell.edu/faculty/asteinhardt/mywebs/sexual_reproduction.htm to http://www.hartnell.edu/faculty/asteinhardt/mywebs/sexual_reproduction.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927075821/http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/secondary_characteristics.html to http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/secondary_characteristics.html
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) 04:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified