Talk:Male

Article scope

@CaptainEek: The lead section of an article is supposed to reflect its body. Currently the bodies of the articles male and female are almost entirely about biology, and say almost nothing about gender or even humans in general. Since the articles are about sex, not gender, I feel that it's best to explicitly restrict their scope to the field of biology.

If we don't do this, and pretend that the articles male and female are also about gender, then we conflate sex and gender. This is also why I removed the links from the lead sentences of the articles man and woman. The words "male" and "female" refer to gender in those, yet they point to articles that are primarily about sex in biology. PBZE (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Well the male and female articles mention gender because the societal usage is somewhat interchangeable. While I agree that it conflates sex and gender, and that the definitions are a bit busted, that's a society problem not a Wikipedia problem. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Most of society also doesn't understand what Power (physics) is and how it differs from Energy, but that doesn't stop us from having an article dedicated to it. The point is that there exist reliable sources in which male and female have a distinct, specialized meaning in biology, and barely cover anything about gender or humans in general. There exist other reliable sources that talk about gender, which understand that it's not the same as sex. In general, reliable sources understand that these terms have related, but different, meanings in different contexts and avoid mixing them up. So we have separate articles for male, man, male plant, male connector, masculine gender, masculinity, etc. The misconceptions held by the general public shouldn't influence what's on Wikipedia.

If people were to add to Power (physics) that "Power can also refer to Power (social and political)", and then in another article say "Wealth is associated with power (physics)", that would be erroneous. The same thing applies to the man and woman articles when they link to male and female.

Maybe it would be easier to understand if the articles were renamed male (biology) and female (biology). And perhaps the article for woman would have the word "female" bolded, like "A woman is an adult female human", and same for the man article. But that's not how it's set up currently, and I don't feel like putting in the work to propose a move right now. PBZE (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not understanding the argument that meanings of "male" outside of biology should be excluded from this article. These meanings are as old as the word itself, are an important part of contemporary language use (viz. men who are politicians are "male politicians", not "man politicians"), and are not generally characterized by any confusion or lack of clarity on the part of those using them. Of course "male" has a specialized meaning in biology, including in human biology, but "male" in relation to humans has never been limited to this narrow, biological sense of the term. Newimpartial (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: The thing is, this article is already primarily about the specialized meaning in biology, and does not cover humans in any significant way. This is reflected in both the article body and in the lead sentence. Adding a single sentence mentioning an alternative meaning doesn't do much to change that. We can either expand this article to cover all the various uses of the term "male", proportionally weighted, or we can explicitly clarify that this article only covers the biological sense of the term. I did the latter.

If we claim that this article is about both sex and gender, then we conflate the two concepts. I added the phrase "In biology, " to the lead sentence to restrict its scope, because otherwise, it falsely implies that this article's definition of "male" is broadly applicable outside of biology.

I agree that the biological meaning may not be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "male". Perhaps we should move Male (disambiguation) to Male and Male to Male (biology). PBZE (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I would support landing on the disambiguation page, except that I am not convinced that Wikipedia currently has quality targets available for the most important senses of "Male". The current content of Male (disambiguation) does not give cause for optimism, I feel. Newimpartial (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: In my opinion, the only two primary topics for "male" are for sex and gender. Wikipedia does not have an article specifically about "Male (gender)", but the closest equivalent is probably "Man"; the "Gender" article currently links to the articles "Woman" and "Man". If we need a separate article about "Male (gender)" we could always create one. As long as the disambiguation page lists two articles at the top, each roughly corresponding to sex and gender respectively, it should be fine, in my opinion.

This article gives WP:UNDUE weight to sex and not gender, and it is therefore inappropriate to claim that it represents the common usage of the term "male". That's why I tried to explicitly restrict its scope to biology (and why I thought it was problematic to link "Man" to "Male" and "Woman" to "Female"). Originally I was unsure whether or not I should also try to move it, but now I am convinced that this article's non-disambiguated title of "Male" in of itself gives WP:UNDUE weight to sex and not gender. How would you feel about a move proposal for this article and the "Female" article? PBZE (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I would oppose an RM, but I would like to have the environment (disambiguation, etc.) cleaned up a bit first. For one thing, the articles "Man" and "Woman", while they do address gender, are by no means limited to gender. And by the way, if you look into the past, I have tried to remove wikilinks myself (I believe it was the link from Woman to "Female") for the same reason you did - because the first sentence of the lead at "male" and "female" is misleading in restricting the sense of those words to their meaning in biology. However, it has proved more feasible to include the alternate senses of "female" and "male" in the lead of these articles (albeit not in the lead sentence) than it was to remove the wikilink. And the Male (disambiguation) page is a dog's breakfast - a very unlikely place to direct the reader even to the very basic point that for human beings, "Male" can refer to sex or gender. See also the archive for Talk:Sex and gender distinction for an example of how vexed the editing of these areas can be: in that instance, because there is not universal agreement about what precisely the distinction is or how it can be formulated, some editors therefore conclude that any language supporting the premise that some such distinction actually exists somehow violates NPOV, even though the only sources disputing the reality of the distinction are extremely FRINGE and typically RSOPINION pieces.

So while I would not oppose a move, I would rather have a sense of a plausible, improved end state treatment of these topics, before launching into RfCs that carry the potential to make things worse than they are at present. Newimpartial (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate change to make. While sex and gender are distinct, they are still very much related concepts. Usage in reliable sources does not justify dogmatic insistence that "man" always means a gender and nothing to do with male sex. As was said earlier, this is society's problem and not ours, and it is not our place to insist on particular definitions or right great wrongs. The current setup makes all necessary clarifications and is in accord with WP:DUE.

More specifically, when sources talk about men and women, they (as a whole) talk about both sex and gender related aspects of the topic. "Women's health", for example, has to do with needs related to pregnancy, as well as social issues. That is the sources treating these things as tightly related. The current definitions of man and woman are in accord with the vast majority of definitions used in reliable sources and experts on the English language. The articles on male and female emphasize sex because that is what most sources focused on those words talk about - sources using the gender meaning mainly talk about men and women as their actual topic and hence that material belongs in those articles. Nonetheless, these articles do acknowledge both meanings. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC) expanded Crossroads ^-talk- 01:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I would propose we move from a less gendered article title, something like Wolffian sex, referencing Wolffian duct, but that would be a neologism. Male is gendered, even in Spanish the word macho is gendered. — Tazuco 01:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

And male sex includes trans men, since they are FTM/transsex. — Tazuco 01:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Then what is the difference between male and female? Is a male cat that has its penis surgically removed now a female cat? 80.229.22.58 (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

(replying to your edit summary as well) I didn't say sex and gender are identical. But both carry parallelisms. And according to Anne Fausto-Sterling, sex is not binary. You can see while googling that some suggest it's a bimodal spectrum, however there's also altersex/aldernic covering possible intangible sex identities intrapersonally. Using male to describe sex is a gendered way to do so. And biological sex is not only gonadal/gonadic/genital or genotypical/genetic/chromosomal/chromosomic, there's also secondary sex characteristics that encompass phenotype, physical body, hormonal dosages, etc. In my passport I have an X in my sex, instead of an M or an F, but I'm not intersex either. It's because where I live sex is not only about biology/morphology/anatomy/corporeality, it's also a psychosocial (psychological/psychical, social, mental, intellectual, interpersonal, spiritual...) and juridical/judicial/civil phenomenon. — Tazuco 21:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

You have and are continuing to do so by trying to assert that what is written in your passport has any bearing whatsoever on your physiological state. The fact that Canada has unilaterally decided to allow legal fictions in the legal documents it issues is not an argument against a global scientific consensus on how we describe material reality. Observe the gametes possessed by mammalian lifeforms such as humans and explain to me how they are "gendered". Count them. As Philip K. Dick said: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”. Male is a term we use to describe our reality.

Further, does any scientist of similar status other than Fausto-Sterling support these claims? Can you name them? The whole reason that science works on consensus is that it is not impossible, even within learned circles, to find wild assertions. Even creationist site 'Answers in Genesis' has somehow managed to engage a number of supporters holding doctorates. 80.229.22.58 (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

IP: what do you think a passport is able to record that is not a legal fiction? Nationality, birthplace, name, date of birth, etc., etc. are all social constructs that take the form of "legal fictions", with nationality - the primordial "fact" of all modern passports - being more fictitious than any of the others. Your apparent conceit that a passport might state something that is not a "legal fiction" in your sense is EXTRAORDINARY claim, which you present here without a shred of evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

You're claiming that human sexual dimorphism is a social construct? 80.229.22.58 (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that support your apparent claim that passports inscribe human sexual dimorphism, as opposed to "legal sex"? The claim seems EXTRAORDINARY. Newimpartial (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Why would I have sources for something I explicitly said was not true in my first post? Are you going to answer my question now? 80.229.22.58 (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

But passports and legal sex have a reality to them as well - even a material reality. They determine for example who can enter what jurisdiction, and what counts as a married couple. And if you don't think marriage is material, try getting divorced.

The sources on the topic of this article are not confined to reproductive biology, so neither is the article. You seem inclined to treat "social constructs" and "material reality" as mutually exclusive, but that is a demonstrably false premise. Newimpartial (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

According to this article's definition, that cat would not have a sex. The majority of this article is about the role of sex in sexual reproduction, and how sex determination works in a variety of species. But for many species, including humans, the term "sex" not only means an organism's role in sexual reproduction, but also the presence of various primary and secondary sex characteristics. The latter definition is not given in this article.

I could be wrong, but I expect that since biologists study a variety of different organisms, not all of which even have secondary sex characteristics, the term "sex" in biology in a broad sense primarily refers to sexual reproduction. Even this varies though, since the terms "male" and "female" are often used as generalizations in reference to primary and secondary sex characteristics, such as describing behavior or physical appearance, among other things. In general, "sex" has no universal, unambiguous definition in all contexts, and on Wikipedia, it's better for us to not pretend that it does. The colloquial usage of the term is a vague incoherent idea of "physical gender". PBZE (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@PBZE: actually male and female are more about reproductive roles.

I don’t understand what makes you say this.

Even this varies though, since the terms "male" and "female" are often used as generalizations in reference to primary and secondary sex characteristics, such as describing behavior or physical appearance, among other things. In general, "sex" has no universal, unambiguous definition in all contexts, and on Wikipedia

Haven’t seen any sources refer to male or female as describing behavior and physical appearance I haven’t seen any sources that say male and female are about appearance.

Also I am not sure what makes you think the definition in the lead right now isn’t universal or unambiguous.CycoMa1 (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I could have used better phrasing. I did not say that the terms "male" and "female" are ever defined by physical appearance or behavior. But the terms are often used in order to describe those things, even though they are only indirectly related to sexual reproduction.

For example, in the article secondary sex characteristics, there is a sentence saying "In males, testosterone directly increases size and mass of muscles, vocal cords, and bones, deepening the voice, and changing the shape of the face and skeleton.". This applies to anyone who has taken testosterone such as some trans men.

More broadly, that article describes traits that are roughly correlated to an organism's role in sexual reproduction, and describes those traits as belonging to "male" or "female" organisms. It describes things such as appearance and sexual selection. The definitions of "male" and "female" in that context are related to, but separate from, their meaning in this article's definition.

The article for testosterone roughly says "Testosterone is the primary sex hormone in males." This is despite the fact that testosterone is also the primary sex hormone for some people and animals who don't produce sperm.

If this article said "the term 'male' also encompasses other features that generally correspond to an organism's role in sexual reproduction", or something like that, then the definition would be roughly complete. PBZE (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@PBZE: sorry it took me while to respond.

But I believe you are either misreading the articles you used as examples or you don’t understand what they mean.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@CycoMa1: No I'm not. PBZE (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

May I suggest that editors read Talk:Woman#Definition of a woman because this discussion is just rehearsing arguments made many times before, with no consensus emerging. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. 80.229.22.58 (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you think you just "won", there, because there is actually consensus behind the lead section of Woman. CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, but it hasn't yet. Newimpartial (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

"Male (gender)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Male (gender) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 29#Male (gender) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Tazuco ✉️ 05:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I added information with references (androgenetic asexual reproduction)

I add androgenesis because it is an alternate reproductive method in some species of animals DanielVizago (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)