Talk:Sex differences in human physiology/Archive 1

message: I built on this article to explain the concept of a Gender gap while trying to approach more NPOV writing. Also, I perceived that some of the explanation and examples confused stereotypes (popular beliefs) with actual gaps. I think actual gaps are under discussion here.
Some of the specific changes I made were:
*Eliding neologisms such as "gender gap inversion," "pro-male gender gap" and its counterpart. I couldn't find these terms used as such in Google, and the article content doesn't suffer without them.
*Removed some unsubstantiated examples that were particularly questionable. They could be added back with proper substantiation.
*Removed statement about "racial gap" and lifespan. It may be true but it doesn't add to understanding of the article's subject.
Really, many of the remaining examples require substantiation as well, but I didn't want to gut the article. Demi T/C 09:09, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
: "An average man is taller than an average woman" - the filing of this strikes me as a POV issue.  I can see people arguing that there are also benefits to being short. -- Smjg 17:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On reading that page a bit more, I'm actually rather confused at what masculism means.  Can you find or think of a more accurate dictionary definition than the only one I've found? -- Smjg 14:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits for POV, stereotypes 

message: Is there a gender gap in aging?  According to some sources, men age faster than women. Tedius Zanarukando 25 Apr 2005, 23:49 (EST).
: Any relation to "Women live slightly longer than men in most countries"? -- Smjg 17:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be possible.  Aging may be a sign of being near the current maximum lifespan. It seems that aging tells how long the person may live. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 05:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender gap in aging 

message: *"In Eastern society, parents prefer to raise sons."
*"Male school students are less likely to complain about dress codes."
*"Men wait longer to marry than women."
Firstly, the way these are written, they seem to an extent to be tarring all members of the respective groups with the same brush.  Secondly, what's your evidence?
And by the third, do you mean longer after birth, getting together, getting engaged or what?  It may be true that in most marriages, the husband is older than the wife.  However, since (in most countries) every marriage involves both sexes, this cannot logically be a matter of how long they wait.  Couples get together, get engaged, and then get married at the same time.  On this basis, the only way that husbands can be older is if men tend to choose future wives who are younger than themselves, or women tend to choose future husbands who are older.  Quite a different concept from waiting longer to marry. -- Smjg 10:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions by Tedius 

message: There seems to be quite a mix between differences based on gender (differences due to society), and those based on physical differences between the sexes. Should these be separated out and each grouped together in some way? Admittedly there are some where it's not clear whether the difference is due to sex or gender, but on the other hand it seems perhaps odd lumping "men have more pockets in their clothes" with "men have testosterone". Alternatively the article could simply be changed to clarify it's talking about differences based on biological sex and gender. What do others think? Mdwh 23:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex versus Gender 

message: I thought this article was intended to be serious, but I would never link to an article that explains things such as "Men's clothing have pockets".... / Fred-Chess 15:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seriousness?

message: Ok, I decided to “be bold” and did some reorganization and deletion:
* Added a paragraph about nature versus nurture and average versus individual cases. 
* Deleted the item about pockets (POV: who says more pockets is an advantage? Maybe it’s a disadvantage, because you can never remember where you put your wallet!)
* Added item about men’s clothing being more comfortable (reasonably non-controversial).
* Added items relating to Janet Hyde’s meta-analysis of gender difference studies.
* Added items about David Buss’s study on mate selection.
* Added items about intelligence and a link to the “sex and intelligence” article.
* Added item about the “glass ceiling” and relative levels of wealth.
* Added item about men being incarcerated more than women. It is a fact that men make up a higher percentage of the prison population in most (all?) countries. Speculating about the reasons may be POV, but stating the numbers is not.
* Added item about men being more likely victims of violent crime (other than rape).
* Deleted the item about eostregen providing an advantage in making hair healthy and skin less wrinkled. I could find no sources to back this up. Some suggest that women are disadvantaged when it comes to skin aging because they have less collagen. This may be masked by women using moisturizers and other skin care products more than men. Anyway, if someone has facts and can back them up, they can put the item back in. 
* Deleted the item about women controlling wealth through their husbands (hard to see how this provides a comparative advantage for women). 
* Condensed the items on women’s clothing variety to a single item (all comes down to the same point: more variety). 
* Removed removed the item about women having fewer mental health problems, which is simply untrue. Added items from the WHO report on gender and mental health (roughly similar levels between men and women, althought specific problems such as depression and alcoholism are more common in one gender or another). 
*Added items about illiteracy and education. 
*Removed the sentence about affirmative action in relation to college numbers. This suggests that the increase in female numbers is mainly due to affirmative action, which is POV (other countries have had similar increases without affirmative action). Added information about college attendance in UK and Iran to make the item less US-specific. 
*After “there were more women than men who were doctors and lawyers” added “while there were more men who were engineers”. 
* Added a section about similarities between the sexes (important not to forget there are significant similarities).  
* Reorganized the lists a bit to group related items. 
* Added footnotes. 
I think this is an important area but we need to avoid non-verifiable claims.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.192.248.235 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of edits: hope this is an improvement

message: Women live longer than men in most countries (a notable exception is Afghanistan and other Muslim countries).
The way this reads, it suggests that men live longer than women in all Muslim countries, which is not true (see WHO countries list and check the figures for Indonesia and Egypt, for example). I changed this to include just Afghanistan and Pakistan. You can put in other examples if you can want (and can verify them).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.192.248.235 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life expectancy in Muslim countries

message: I removed the following:
"There are more men than women in online dating websites. In general 60% of members are male compared to 40% female. Consequently males often find it very hard to solicit responses whereas females are usually inundated with emails from suitors."
This is inaccurate and oversimplified, with no supporting citations. To the best of my knowledge and experience, gender ratios vary greatly depending on the nature of the dating website. Sites which focus on sex and short-term flings (like AdultFriendFinder) have many times more men than women, while websites that focus on marriage and long-term commitment, like Eharmony, have significantly more women than men. Furthermore, the ratio also varies greatly according to age, with men outnumbering women in the 18-30 age range, and women outnumbering men in the over 40 age group. Thus, IMHO, there is no significant clear-cut gap favouring either gender here.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.152.18.244 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Online Dating  

message: Just got here, from gender. Am I right in assuming that the present article talks only about humans? In that case it should say so. Arbor 07:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only for humans, right? 

message: Additionally, 92% of occupational deaths occur among men.
Do you have a source for this? I don't doubt it (far more men work in  firefighting, fishing, construction work, and other risky jobs). But see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Also, is this a worldwide figure or specific to one country or region?--Fionah 08:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupational deaths

message: I'm not sure what the purpose of this article is. It seems to be making a thinly veiled argument that men and women are essentially the same; and that they only differ in the aggregate, statistically. One one one, chances are, a man and a woman are likely to be equal in any significant way.
Perhaps the article point of view hinges on how "equal" (or "equality") is defined. Or maybe it simply was intended to reflect the point of view that all differences between men and women (other than average physical disparities) are the result of upbringing, culture, education, religion, and so on. 
I changed the intro accordingly. If the change is reverted, that will tell me something (tacitly), but I'd much rather have explicit discussion. --Uncle Ed 14:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV of this article

message: On average, women speak 7,000 words per day, compared to 2,000 words for men.
Is there a source for this? I googled for “women 7000 words per day”, but all I found were blogs and unverified lists of factoids. Note: I am NOT saying this is untrue, I am saying that it needs to be verified. 
Also, the statement could do with some context. Where was the study done? (e.g. was if in North America, Europe, Asia?) What language was spoken? (e.g. German speakers probably speak fewer words per day, what with all those long compounded words. And Spanish speakers may talk faster and so fit in more words per day.)  What age were the participants? What was the situation? (See Tannen’s point about public situations vs home.)Fionah 10:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it turns out the number was pulled out of thin air (or at least out of some self-help book). Most studies find either that men and women speak the same average number of words, or that men speak slightly more! See  Sex-Linked Lexical Budgets on the Language Log. Fionah 10:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Communication

message: Most of the intro for Economics probably belongs in the Income disparity article. I propose the following:
: In many countries, there is a gender income gap which favors males in the labor market. For example, the median salary for U.S. women is 76% of that of U.S. men. However, a study found that U.S. women earn 98 percent of what men do when controlled for experience, education, and number of years on the job. See income disparity.
And then move the other information to income disparity or Male-female income disparity in the USA. For an example of something similar, see the Intelligence section on this page, where there is just a summary of the main points with detailed discussion on the sex and intelligence page.Fionah 10:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Income disparity

message: "# Men's orgasm is essential for reproduction whereas female orgasm does not have any obvious function other than to be pleasurable."
I'm removing this, as it isn't (productive ejaculation can be had without orgasm, unless I truly misunderstand what orgasm is; it seems likely that the first is the only thing necessary for reproduction).  Just found a reference. 24.16.251.40 19:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orgasm 

message: I removed the following from the "sex and intelligence" section:
 In a study by C Davison Ankney from the University of Western Ontario, Ankney found that men on average, have a 100-gram advantage over women in brain weight.  A study done in Denmark in the late 1990's documented that men have about 15 per cent more neurons than women.  Other studies published showing that men have an advantage of 4 to 5 IQ points over women by early adulthood.J Philippe Rushton (2006) University of Western Ontario
The reason is that this section is meant to be a summary of the current evidence from large scale studies of IQ and sex. Currently, most large scale replicated studies show no significant difference between average overall IQ scores of men and women. A few studies show some advantage for males, but these are discussed in the main "Sex and Intelligence" article. 
The referenced study seems flawed because it focuses on SAT scores. Very low IQ people would not take SATs. Since males are overrepresented at the extreme ends of the bell curve (v low and v high IQs), this would eliminate the men who would bring the average down (v low IQs) while keeping the men who would bring the average up (v high IQs). Fewer women would be eliminated (since fewer would be in the low IQ group) but since they are clustered more around the mean they would not contain so many v high IQs to pull up their average. 
Also, the relationship between brain weight and intelligence is not that clear-cut: men weigh more than women overall and so would be expected to have larger brains. 
Fionah 09:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe introduce it into the main sex and intelligence article? My question would be whether this study included people at all levels of IQ, including low IQs. Because of men's greater variability, if you cut out people below a certain level you will skew the average. Fionah 08:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sex and intelligence 

message: The literature on the subject of waist to hip ratio seems to make use of a unique method of denoting such a ratio by using a single decimal number like 0.7 for women and 0.9 for men as a 'ratio'. 
This is confusing since it really should be; 0.7:1 (the waist is 70% the circumference of the hips) for women and 0.9:1 (the waist is 90% the circumference of the hips) for men. 
A ratio is the differential relationship between two quantities, so a ratio with a greater difference should be thought of as a greater ratio. However, in the case of WHR, the 'greater' WHR number is actually a smaller ratio (in normal terminology.) It really should be described as women having a greater WHR than men, but that would appear to conflict with the fact that the number 0.7 is smaller than the number 0.9, even though both numbers represent only half of their respective ratios.
I personally find this confusing since it goes against any other use of the term 'ratio' that I've seen. But it seems to be the norm for this particular ratio, probably because it is easier for the general public to handle a single number when reading diet books and trying to improve their WHR. 
Oh well...
Doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. 10:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  waist hip ratio 

message: DarkSenel on 00:34, 19 April 2007 changed "Overall, women claim to be somewhat happier than men with their lives" to "Overall, women claim to be far happier than men with their lives". However, from the the Pew study that is used as a reference : "Women are somewhat happier than men with their lives overall, according to 38,000 interviews in 44 countries conducted by the Pew Research Center for the Pew Global Attitudes Survey... Women give their lives a better rating in 29 of 44 countries surveyed. In some countries the differences between genders is very small and in others it is quite significant. Women's greater satisfaction with life is pervasive in many of the less-developed regions of the world: in 7 of the 8 countries surveyed in Asia, 6 of the 8 nations in Latin America and all 5 nations in east and southern Africa. In particular, women are much happier than men in Japan, India, the Philippines, Pakistan and Argentina. In contrast, men and women in Western Europe and Canada are quite similar in the way they judge their lives." This indicates that "far happier" is an exaggeration. It should be simply "Overall, women claim to be happier than men with their lives" or "Overall, women claim to be happier than men with their lives in 29 out of 44 countries". This gives a much better summary of what the study actually found. Fionah 08:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women "somewhat" or "far" happier? 

message: I just wanted to discuss the two images for "Female Sex Characteristics" and "Male Sex Characteristics" in the "Physical differences" section. Firstly the labels are different sizes in each image when scaled to the same size, with the female images labels nearly impossible to read without clickling on it.
Secondly, I'm not sure these are the two best images to use to illustrate the differences in sex characteristics. I'm going to try to be as delicate as possible here so that I don't offend peoples' sensibilities.
Starting with the female image; it is lacking any body hair, which is an important secondary sexual characteristic (this is clearly labelled on the male image). Omitting it; regardless of today's cultural tastes, is a major omission for an encyclopaedia. Also in the photograph the model is in a rather bizarre pose; she looks a little confused and out of place, almost as if shes wondering whats going on. The labels are also a little bizarre and this image used on any other page would be confusing. For example; there is a label pointing to the shoulders that just says "shoulders". Thats not very useful; perhaps "narrower shoulders" etc would be more useful; something displaying a little comparative anatomy and reflecting the points raised in the text.
The male figure shares a number of the same issues. However one extra major issue is the setting; a naked man standing in a field. I'm sure it's all very artistic but it's not very necessary, and it makes it look odd when coupled with the woman's picture with her standing on a white background (with a strange pose). Also the fact the man has tattoos may be confusing to some readers; I doubt people would think tattoos are a secondary sexual characteristic of the male but you can never be too careful!
When studying anatomy and displaying it in textbooks; persons are usually displayed in the "anatomical position"; this is standing straight, facing forward, with the arms by the persons side and the palms also facing forward. Perhaps a photograph or an illustration of a naked man and woman in the anatomical position would be more appropriate.
Finally there is a very artistic but ultimately pointless image of a man, pregnant woman and child. As nice as it is; it add little more than decoration to the page and at the very least should probably moved elsewhere so that the text is easier to read.
What do people think? Anyone know of some better images that could be adapted for purpose?
--DomUK 21:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images of female and male sexual characteristics... 

message: This article has sections on sex differences that seem to speak to the title of the article.  However it also has sections relating to gender-feminist propaganda about gender-differences that are both POV and have nothing to do with sex differences.  This confusion is what feminists have been banking on for political power plays as they pervert and the meaning of both terms.  I added a pov tag here until we take 'gender' out of this article and focus on sex differences alone.  Sex is a biological or medical determined characteristic.  Gender which might include sex is much more complicated.  To confuse sex and gender as is being done so shamelessly in the mass media today is how feminista-feminists rape the language for their ideological and political agendas.  Thus the pov tag on the article.  Please spare us another Assault on Reason here. 
I also pov tagged the Economics section for the shameless study of so-called 'sex' differences the here.  To claim the sex (or gender!) CAUSES social, political or economic differences is an assault on reason too.  Personal choice, personal competence/incompetence and a host of other factors play into these effects.  Please remove the gender-feminist propaganda from this article and focus us on legitimate sex differences as is done so well in the top of the article.
To be at all credible, this article needs to study sex differences that are directly associated to sex rather than making the ludricous leap to include differences attributable to gender, culture, preference, and/or a host of other associated causes that often overlap. As the definition clearly states: A sex difference is a distinction of biological and/or physiological characteristics typically associated with either males or females of a species in general.  There are no socio-political distinctions in this definition.
128.111.95.45 00:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, please assume good faith.  The editors of this article are not necessarily "feminista-feminists" intent on pushing their "propaganda".  Your comment was a little unclear, but I'm assuming you object to the inclusion of things like "clothing" and "consumer behaviour" in this article, as they are more closely related to gender and culture than to biological sex.  However, these sections focus on observable differences between sexes (without claiming either that they are determined by biological differences between men and women, or that they are down to culture).  Perhaps these sections are irrelevant to the topic, but I don't see how they are POV. Cowpepper 12:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No-one's been back to discuss this in two weeks, so I'm removing the POV tags. Cowpepper 15:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: pov tag (sex differences are NOT gender differences)

message: What is this supposed to mean?
* they spend more money in an average year?
* they spend more money in an average shopping trip?
* they spend more money in an average visit to one shop?
* they acquire a greater mass of shopping in <one of the above>?
* they spend more time shopping in <one of the above>?
* they make more shopping trips in an average year?
* they make more visits to individual shops in an average year?
* they visit a wider variety of shops?
* they visit a wider variety of kinds of shops?
* something else entirely?
-- Smjg 15:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Techincally [''sic''], women tend to shop more than men." 

message: article is split into sex and gender differences. gender is related to sociology and sex related to biology. see 2 sections(pov comment) above for details Lara_bran 05:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  split article 

message: It is mistakenly said that women are longer in the torso (shorter legged)than men.  This is not true.  Women do have a lower center of gravity, but their legs are longer relative to torso length as compared to men.  Weight is in the hips.  Men carry more weight in the shoulder and torso area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.230.125 (talk • contribs) 
:Source?--BThetford (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other health differences 

message: I would apprieciate- and I think others would too- more info on height differencial- what the statistics are and how they might vary from place to place or time to time.
IceDragon64 22:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height 

message: It is obvious that women can stand the cold better but I read somewhere that men can stand the heat better, because of their slightly thicker skin. I also read that women have a higher chance of getting skin cancer because of their thinner skin, which the sun penetrates easier.
I think that should be added.  SoundBlast (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skin 

message: Maybe it should be mentioned, thet men have a higher average reaction time then women. The logical explanation for this is that because in acient times hunting and figthting was primarly a task for men. --Qaywsxedc (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  reaction time 

message: It says mistakenly that women "produce" one egg per month.  This is not true, they are born with a finite amount of embryos.  I'm not sure how to edit this.
:I guess it means that one egg per months moves from they place where the finite amount is stored to a place where it has a chance of being fertilized. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reproduction 

message: You know, if the pictures were about fully clothed little girls, and the gender would be hard to determine by the look, something like that is ok. But we see naked men and naked women who are really easy to recognize as such. This article is about primary and secondary sex differences. Adding "characteristics" such as long hair is only confuaing. There is no real scientific agreement about how determined "female" and "male" behaviour is by the physical gender. But we know for sure, there`s no genetic impulse to cut hair or let it grow, nor an evolutionary advantage. In some cultures, both men and women let their hair grow, in others, both cut it down, there were/ are even cultures where men wear their hair long and women short! As with animals like lions, or peacocks, for many animals males, hardly females, have some kinds of manes or colourful feathers. Including humans, e.g. the male beard. Head hair grows down lifelong unless it`s cut. Just as simple.
Hell, why not give the women also a bow, a pink skirt, petticoats, à Barbie doll, and some food to cook and dishes to wash, so we can clearly not doubt they`re female?!
For christ`s sake, they`re naked, we can see doubtless what gender they are, so why even use these clishees??
That`s not what this page is about, even if there are certain tendencies in behaviour, if letting hair grow was one of them we`d see it in other cultures.
Hell, if children red this...
This is a scientific article, and the one about sexism is another one.
Why didn`t they use a man and a woman, looking rather alike, same hairstyle, same hair colour, similiar faces etc., and besides that they still are recognizable as men and women.
It`s not just predujuce, it`s UNNESSECARRY!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.62.9.129 (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long hair on the head is in NO WAY a secondary sex characteristic! 

message: "Biological text books state that humans have a high degree of sexual dimorphism"... No reputable text would say this. High sexual dimorphism is found in things like some species of anglerfish or spiders with the female 100-1000 times more massive than the male. Humans have a moderate degree - in that the sexes are easily visually distinguished - but less than most primates. Human males lack the enlarged canines of many primate males; the size difference between human men and women is less than that between gorilla males and females, or those of Australopithecus afarensis; we lack coloration differences like a mandrill or uakari. Sexual dimorphism in non-human primates generally correlates with terrestriality and large size -- we are large (the second largest living species), strongly terrestrial primates, yet with quite low levels of dimorphism. Therefore, I deleted the sentence. (David Brin is a good SF writer, at least sometimes, but he's not an expert on this anyway.) Vultur (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "high degree of sexual dimorphism"??? 

message: At one point the article states -
On average, men have a greater capacity for cardiovascular endurance. This is due to the enlargement of the lungs of boys during puberty, characterized by a more prominent chest. 
Then two points down it states -
On average, women have more endurance than men.
Can someone clarify what is meant by the second point as it seems vague and conflicting with the first. In what way do women have more endurance than men? What type of endurance's are there other than cardiovascular without getting too abstract? 194.165.29.88 (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endurance 

message: From the caption of the "Expecting_family.jpg" picture: "Humans are a moderately sexually dimorphic species, but less dimorphic than most non-human animals." That is contradictory. If we are less sexually dimorphic than most non-human animals, then we're not "moderately" dimorphic, we're "slightly" dimorphic - what are we comparing it to besides non-human animals?
I don't want to be overbold and change all the "moderate" references to "slight" (though it would be far more accurate, especially if we're comparing humans primarily to other primates) - but I'm going to change that sentence to be non-self-contradictory. In the bigger picture, though, what do we want the article to say here? That human sexual dimorphism is minimal, slight compared to other primates (I would think this is the best option), moderate, or what? Vultur (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Degree of dimorphism redux 

message: "females have language functions evenly distributed in both cerebral hemispheres, while in males they are more concentrated in the left hemisphere"
There's actually a study which concentrates on disproving this: http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/127/8/1845
Thus I think the statement should be removed. --Clayrat (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language lateralization 

message: The specialized article linked to from this article touches on the issue more, but I see that this article too mentions IQ testing. You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of  Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by  suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the  Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have another source list,  Genetics and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by  suggesting new sources through comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing 

message: Which article discusses mental and emotional differences between the sexes? Are there such differences, or is this just pop psychology or a literary fad? In "My Fair Lady" there's a song which asks, "Why can't a woman be more like a man?" Sigmund Freud famously asked, "What do women want?"  
John Gray wrote Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus implying via metaphor that male-female differences were as great as beings from different planets. 
There has been lots of advocacy insisting that men and women are inherently quite different, as well as (largely feminist?) advocacy insisting that men and women are inherently the same and that it is merely social pressure which makes them different. Has anyone studied what if any the inherent differences are, or (for those who hypothesize that there are no such differences) what specific social forces cause the sexes to have different thoughts, feelings and wants?
If I'm in the wrong article tell me. Or if there's no such article yet, please volunteer to help me write it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mental and emotional differences

message: I see that there has been a lot of edit-warring here about hair color and eye color as traits that vary by sex. That section of this article needs much better sourcing. This is about a human genetics subject, so the applicable sourcing guideline is  reliable sources (medicine), which will point the way forward to identifying reliable sources for resolving the edit war. Careful sourcing is especially important when editors aren't agreeing with one another. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please review [[WP:MEDRS]].  

message: The article seems limited to anatomy, shouldn't it be discussing behavior?--Babank (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What would you like to add? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Stuff that's covered on sex and psychology: Intelligence, Mathematics, Memory, Spatial abilities, Aggression, Emotion, Empathy.  We'd give a summary and give a  link.--Babank (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No discussion of psychology either. The article concentrates on physiology and takes purely a biological perspective. So I propose moving it to Sex differences in the human body or Sex differences in human physiology. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Babank's solution is good. --Aronoel (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Babank has not offered a solution, merely raised a question. Babank, why not add some of the material that you consider that this article needs, supported by reliable sources, of course. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed.  A few books to add relevant material re sex differences (all written by Ph.Ds in the respective fields):  "Male, Female" by Geary, "Sex Differences" by Mealey, "Why Sex Matters" by Low, What Women Want - What men Want" by Townsend, "Sex Differences in Cognition" by Halpern, "A Mind of Her Own: The Evolutionary Psychology of Women" by Campbell, "Evolution's Empress" by Fisher, "The Evolution of Desire" by Buss, "The Male Brain" and "The Female Brain" both by Brizenden.   Memills (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No discussion of behavior 

message: The article doesn't mention diferrences in personalities between the sexes,  although that seems to be the most important issue to me. --87.145.251.227 (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See the sub-article Sex and psychology. --Aronoel (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences in personality 

message: The article first states this:
:It has been argued[by whom?] that the Y chromosome is primarily responsible for males being more susceptible to mental illnesses.
And later this:
:Overall rates of mental illness are similar for men and women.
Unless I am missing something, this is a contradiction. The first statement is unsourced. The second statement is from a report by WHO. Should the first statement be removed?
213.67.51.68 (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, unless and until a suitable sources is provided. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory facts on mental illness 

message: I suggest that the image in the introduction should be replaced with a new one. Everyone is welcome to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy#Replacement of human anatomy image. Mikael Häggström (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement of image 

message: I think it would be valuable for authors to keep in mind the necessity to take a balanced, gender-neutral approach to their contributions.
Many parts of this article are majority written from a male perspective or orientation, for example descriptions under the size/weight/body shape or skeleton and muscular system (Males, on average... Men are... Men weigh... Men's brows... Male skin... etc etc), and most paragraphs begin with description from the male.
This is quite pernicious and authors should try to neutralise their own positionality when writing, since it tends to posit the male as 'normative' from which the female differs.
Simmyymmis (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see how 'Males weigh about 15 % more than females', 'men are taller than women','men have a larger waist in comparison to their hips... than women' or 'Women have a larger hip section than men' posit the male as normative. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I am also struggling to see how this article takes a male viewpoint. Do you have a specific suggestion on how you would like to reformulate the examples you mentioned to be more neutral? Averagejoedev (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positionality/Sexism 

message: User:Scsoclass has made a single edit to Wikipedia which consisted of adding the long section "Science and Technology Studies Perspective on Sex Differences in Humans" to this article. It reads like a POV personal essay and is full of strange expression like "Studies have also referenced binaristic endocrinology and genomics research which ignores intraspecies similarities in hormones and genotype."  Also, this is the wrong article for this debate which is already discussed extensively in several other articles like Sex and psychology, Gender role, Social construction of gender difference, Gender, and others. As such I am WP:BOLD and removing this section. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Science and Technology Studies Perspective on Sex Differences in Humans" section 

message: I am sorry but this article is full of feminist propaganda and lies.  It claims that basically men have more muscle mass than women only because they work out more, which is one of the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on Wikipedia.  This has no scientific value at all, and is just a way to promote a feminist agenda.  Also the article is full of damage control from a feminist point of view, that try to undermine every "superior" physical male trait like height, strength and muscle mass, instead of being objective and using a scientific approach.  Also I find that there is too much emphasis on the whole intersex thing, which has its own section, and is not really relevant here.  I think it needs a clean-up.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.162.169.69 (talk) 08:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have any scientific sources relevant to those topics, we'll be happy to use them. Kaldari (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: He is right that absolutely bonkers feminist opinions are given prominent placement in the strength section. Leyk, et. at. (2007) compared grip strength between two very large samples of men and women and a sample of elite female athletes from sports requiring good grip strength. In the general samples, 90% of women were weaker than 95% of men and while the female athletes were significantly stronger than normal women, their average grip strength was only on the 25th percentile of male's grip strength and the strongest woman of all had grip strength placing her at the 58th percentile of male grip strength. From Leyk (2007): "the strength level attainable by extremely high training [for women] will rarely surpass the 50th percentile of untrained or not specifically trained men". OneTimeComment 3495873657 (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I've added that to the article. Any other suggestions? Kaldari (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Female here. It is certainly absurd to state that "men have more muscle mass than women only because they work out more." But, at the time of IP 184.162.169.69's complaint, the Strength, power and muscle mass section did not only attribute men being stronger due to "working out"; the "being more physically active" pieces were in reference to some cases. This link shows what the section stated. That section is better now, at the time of this post by me. Flyer22 (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feminist propaganda and lies 

message: 'In fact, for every 100,000 US drivers, men are three times as likely to be killed in an automobile accident.'
Am I missing something here or does this not make sense?
90.211.77.40 (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the sentence and added a source needed tag. An editor had added quite a lot of unsourced material to this section, that I now have removed. Lova Falk talk 08:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Car crash data 

message: There are quite a few sections of text on this page that are completely baseless. I do not believe they give any proper facts nor show any verifiable study.
I tried to manipulate it but screwed up and believed that I really should come here to discuss the issues. The references are [1] and [15] Birke, Lydia. The Gender and Science Reader ed. Muriel Lederman and Ingrid Bartsch. New York, Routledge, 2001. 306-322
*"Sex differences are also increased or decreased according to societal situations"
*"Males, however, are socially pressured to enhance their upper body muscles, leading to a wider difference in upper body strength"
I would like to know peoples thoughts on the validity of these statements.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajmanos (talk • contribs) 05:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Intuitively, I would say that the first sentence is true (even though I wonder about the use of societal instead of social). There are certain situations (for instance, drinking and flirting in a bar), in which sex differences will be more pronounced than other situations (for instance, solving a problem together). The second sentence sounds more as an author's personal theory. However, I don't have access to the source. Lova Falk talk 13:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of baseless references 

message: These pages are looking really great, and I was wondering if I can get the input from the editors here on a related matter, the organisation of sexual differentiation-related articles on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if there is a relevant Wikiproject, so I have pinged the editors individually on the conversation at WP:ANATOMY, here: :Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy#Sexual_differentiation_articles
Kindly, --LT910001 (talk) 07:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment from editors 

message: You should explain why there tends to be more females than males in most developed countries, giving some examples of the countries in which this occurs. Explanation is needed on why the 100:101 ratio exists. Rather than including a link to a human sex ratio wikipedia page maybe list examples of countries with greater ratio differences and some with no differences. There may be some countries with more females than males, so it may be important to go further than just giving the source. Furthermore, why have you included human sex ratios in this article on human physiology?? It isn't quite relevant so this should be removed. Psuncl (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex Ratio 

message: I've added some more information from the Puts (2006) article, referencing them. I've given the two different types of sexual selection and why they cause the differences in male voices to occur.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psuncl (talk • contribs) 13:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution of sexual dimorphism in human voice 

message: Starting discussion on male/female vs man/woman in article. Common practice is to use the former when referring specifically to anatomy (and is common in guidelines like APA and AMA). EvergreenFir (talk) Please  08:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. "Man" and "Woman" usually refers to adults anyway. Sex differences in human physiology are not solely about adults. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

text: I see that this section is related to a dispute concerning . Truthdefender2015, I don't understand your point regarding the LGBT community, but do read WP:Activism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Male/female

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2005/405_sex.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified