Talk:Sexual characteristics

message: While I have been a proponent of the Heteronormativity page, I do not see how it applies here in such a way that it belongs in the "see also" section. It is a way of describing views toward gender roles, and has nothing to do with the biology of sex characteristics. I do see a valid point in going the other way around (Heteronormativity to Sexual characteristics), but for very different reasons. -Harmil 20:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple: The sexual characteristics, which are supposed to divide humans neatly into 2 distinct categories are an essential part of heteronormativity - while at the same time it is heteronormativity that causes the need for those distinct categories. Reverted therefore as most of the rest. -- AlexR 16:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: heteronormativity does not "cuase the need for" sexual characteristics, they are and they have strong bearing on that article, but not visa versa. I will let the community at large deal with this, since obviously you have a personal problem with my edits. I will leave the page that I carefully expanded from stub to useful biology article alone from now on, sadly (except to make sure that the NPOV and accuracy templates remain as long as the article pushes your POV and has factual (admited, below, even) flaws. -Harmil 18:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heteronormativity 

message: Since that seems to be necessary, here the reasons - point by point - why I revert from your revert again. I would really appreciate if for a change you would discuss them, instead of starting yet another revert war.
* Sexual characteristics' are those characteristics in sexually dysmorphic organisms which are used to determine their biological sex. changed back into Sexual characteristics are those characteristics in virtually all multicellular organisms which are used to determine their biological sex.
**So because I make a typo - and one you recognisesed, according to your edit comment, you switch back to the old version that does not cover fungi? Sorry, but fungi are not all that important here, and if necessary, it can be added in an extra section. It is certainly not an excuse for a version that is basically false - there are quite a few, if primitive, multicelular organisms which do reproduce asexually. Reverted.
* The development of both is controled by sex hormones after the initial fetal stage where the presence or absence of the Y-chromosome and/or the SRY gene determine development. reverted to Hormones (chemical messengers between cells) are the trigger that cause most organisms to express and/or alter their sexual characteristics during their development and life cycle.
**Say, you can't just write in a way that most people understand, and at the same time keep content, even if you don't - for whatever reason - like it, can you? Why exactly did you remove the bit about the Y-Chromosome, and what precisely do you mean by "express or alter" their sexual characteristics - that doesn't make a lot of sense, and even if one tries to read some into it, it is hardly an elegant way to express the matter. And hormones don't "express sexual differentiation" either. As for the short explanation what hormones are - unnecessary. People who look up such a topic either have an idea what that is, or don't mind clicking the link. Reverted.
* The "Intersexuality and hermaphrodism" part - yes, well you keep inplying that intersex people are somehow to be put with plants and snakes. This bit is still under the "humans" heading, if you want it to extend to plants and animals (something completely pointless, since it has already been done in other articles) then do that under a seperate heading. 
I am really, really sick by your constant reverting to less-than-ideal version, with no reason given, no consideration whatever for the edits that are done by other people, and the whining that accompanies any changes. I find it extremely hard to assume good faith by now, because good faith edits are aimed at improving the article, not at satisfying personal pride (which is what you so tellingly refered to in another talk page). -- AlexR 16:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits by Harmil

message: I do see why the accuracy of the article has been challenged.  There is one glaring error.  I am not sure whether it is a simple reversal of meaning or vandalism.  The references to gynephilic and to androphilic have been reversed, thus stating that homosexuality is the usual rule and heterosexuality the exception.  I am not correcting it at this time. Robert McClenon 19:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Correcting that - was a vandal this morning in sex . AlexR 22:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A Reversal

message: It appears that civility has broken down in the disagreement about whether parts of this article are POV or NPOV.  Please remember that one of the first rules of Wikipedia is Be Civil.  I have taken the liberty of putting a Controversial template on this talk page.  Robert McClenon 23:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Be Civil

message: Regarding User:Harmil/Sexual characteristics, I did indeed look at this version and considered it when merging content into sex.  Most of the material in both versions was already present in that article in greater detail, anyway, so there was no need to do anything.  I did like the peacock picture very much, and I added it to Secondary sex characteristic.  If there's anything you think I've missed, or anything new you'd like to add, please do add it to sex or one of its subarticles.  One reason not to re-incarnate this article is not that the content is necessarily bad, it's just that it already exists in a more complete form elsewhere. -- Beland 08:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disposition of Harmil's version

message: Well, I look slightly differently at this stuff.  I've been in the corner of both of these editors in the past.  In this case, I'd ask "is there a lack of coverage that such an article would fill?"  The answer to that, to me, remains "yes."  I know that the information here has been merged into sex, but redirects are iffy when the targets too large.  We ought not redirect (and would not think of) Bill Gates to Human and merge the material in there.  To some degree, a break-away article can accomplish greater utility by making a coherent statement in a wider or narrower context than a suitable parent article.  The mechanisms of sexual dimorphism and phenotypical change due to gene expression in the presence or absence of certain hormones is interesting and, frankly, a bit extranneous to sex (and especially sex, which already has to disambiguate).  In essence, I suppose I'm saying that Harmil's attempts are laudable precisely because they're about basic biology and not behavior/society/gender.  Instead of calling it "biology," though, perhaps we're better off saying that it's a physiology article that's still needed.
So I, anyway, can see why this war needs to end, but I also can see why we're still left with a gap in our coverage, because we don't have a physiological discussion.  (shrug)  Geogre 19:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dissent (useless) 

message: It's not actually a double redirect, but anyway "sexual characteristics" is a biology term and there is no way on earth it could possibly redirect to sexual intercourse! (I've seen too many of these crap redirects today) Lysis rationale (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  a note 

message: I'm not sure what exactly was that the editorial team found the previous version of the article "lousy" (or controversial for that matter, lol), but I made it into a highly relevant disambig page. Lysis rationale (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambig 

message: I wrote down some thought over at Talk:Noncoding_DNA#Functionality. I think it might be important to mention some of those things at this article, if my assumptions are correct.
KVDP (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetics

message: Do primary sexual characteristics include gonads? Born25121642 (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a factual accuracy tag to the page. Born25121642 (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: LMGTFY: "primary sex character, features present at birth that comprise the external and internal genitalia, including the penis and testes and the vagina and ovaries." Encyclopaedia Britannica. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not the same term. Born25121642 (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed - Gonads 

message: I tried to fixed that but it won't. Can you please fix this for me? Thank you. 75.137.1.247 (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicated citations?