Talk:Sex–gender distinction/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Contradiction in definitions

The article says that sex is defined by characteristics while at the same saying it’s assigned to you. Do you guys not realize how’s that kind of a contradiction.CycoMa (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC) Or is the definition of sex assignment different than the definitions of sex assignment I have found.CycoMa (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC) Actually thank you Tewdar. Your recent change did fix it up a bit.CycoMa (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa - Sex assignment: They see a willy (characteristic), it's a boy (assignment). If not, it's a girl. I *knew* that biology degree would come in useful one day... Tewdar (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
One definition of sex assignment I have read is that a person was chosen by their doctor or parents to be a boy or a girl.CycoMa (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Perfect. I like that one. Source? Tewdar (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
It's been known to happen, especially in people with DSD/intersex conditions. Are we getting into forum discussion here? It seems that Tewdar's tweak (which I'm fine with) may have addressed the concern this section is about. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Yup, the tweak that Tewdar made did indeed fix the issue at hand.CycoMa (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Yep, I think that's the problem solved. Tewdar (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Tewdar I recommend you actually read the sources you put into articles. Because the sources you added to that single sentence disagree with each other one definitions.CycoMa (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

What makes you think I didn't read them? The general statement, "sex = biology, gender = cultural" is supported. What do you mean, they disagree? Examples, please. Tewdar (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Crossroads, who recently reverted a version of this line. Also addressing CycoMa, who is now removing sources on WP:SYNTH grounds. I feel Tewdar's clarification of the sentence content itself was a clear improvement. I also find the loose description of sex in that context to be correct and well-supported by the sources. I am less sure about the description of gender, though I'd prefer to come back to that later, since the locus of the current dispute seems to be about the sex part.

CycoMa, I'm very familiar with SYNTH and WP:NOTSYNTH (an essay), and I am not able to see your concerns. Could you pick out the clearest of the sources your removed and help me understand why it doesn't support the preceding sentence? Crossroads, I don't think I know enough about your position here to comment on it yet. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

They removed, amongst other things, "Sex refers to the biological characteristics of males and females. Gender includes more than sex and serves as a cultural indicator of a person’s personal and social identity". How does that not support the sentence? CycoMa is 1RRed for a good reason, it seems. Tewdar (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Most of them should be put back. There are one or two that do not 100% support the phrasing used, but the solution is probably to modify the phrasing, rather than remove the sources. I find CycoMa's approach irrational and provocative. Tewdar (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Imagine if the mind-body dualism article removed the summary of the views of Aristotle, Descartes, etc. on the grounds that their opinions on the matter were "partisan"... Tewdar (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Tewdar one of your sources said gender was the non physiological aspects of being male or female. That doesn’t match up with the definition in that sentence.CycoMa (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh yeah, which one was that? It's not on the page anymore I suppose... Tewdar (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, how does that *contradict* the phrasing used? Tewdar (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Right, so you come along, remove references without discussion, imply that I don't read the sources I add, and now... oh look, cartoons are on! Tewdar (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
You left out "- the cultural expectations and roles for femininity and masculinity" from your "analysis" of my source. Was this intentional, or merely an oversight? Tewdar (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Tewdar, regarding the third sentence in this current version, what purpose is this sentence serving that the lead sentence does not? It looks completely redundant to me. A parenthetical definition of sex as "a biological trait" could be added to the first sentence, though I thought the wikilink was enough. Also, the sentence currently suffers from WP:OVERCITE.

As a whole, WP:RS define sex as a biological trait, not merely as vague "differences" in hormones, chromosomes, or anatomy. A female person with high endogenous testosterone, three X chromosomes, or post-hysterectomy is no less female. Per WP:DUE, it is a categorical trait. Crossroads -talk- 19:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The constantly recurring theme in these sources, at an absolutely overwhelming level of agreement almost unheard of in the social sciences, is "sex = biological, gender = psycho-sociocultural". This is made absolutely explicit in any reference, encyclopedia, or textbook on the topic. Except Wikipedia. It is utterly irrelevant what the "correct" biological definition of sex is in this article, just like the "correct" biological definition of mind has nothing to do with the mind-body dualism article. We are not talking about *sex*, we are talking about "sex" - a set of attributes and behaviours vaguely related to "biology", as understood *by the people making the distinction*. Defining sex, then defining gender, then playing spot the difference, is SYNTH and OR. Very few "sex and gender distinction" writers talk about differences in gametes, because this is not what sex means for them. Tewdar (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, the page range is not "too broad". Do you have the book? Tewdar (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I see your little tag-team partner has arrived... Tewdar (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Tewdar I don’t think you truly comprehend what I’m trying to say here.
Please read in on WP:SYN.
Yes these sources agree that “sex is biological and gender is cultural”
But, you fail to understand that there definitions of sex aren’t aligning with each other.
If these sources are using the exact same definition. Like I have no issue with Wikipedia mentioning that there are various definitions to a certain thing. That happens all the time.
But, you are various sources that have different definitions to prove a definition in a single sentence.
It doesn’t matter if these various sources agree that sex is biological and gender is socially constructed.CycoMa (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I think it is you who doesn't understand WP:SYN. There is nothing in that sentence that is not supported by the sources. They don't all need to say the exact same thing. Nor am I combining two or more sources to produce a conclusion not found in the sources themselves. I could write that sentence with ZERO sources actually, because that sentence *summarizes the article*... Tewdar (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
There was only one source, before this morning. But then Crossroads asked for more sources. Now you're complaining, because the sources don't all say exactly the same thing. Tewdar (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Okay let me help you understand.
[this source] says
The UK government defines sex as:referring to the biological aspects of an individual as determined by their anatomy, which is produced by their chromosomes, hormones and their interactions generally male or female something that is assigned at birth
[This source says]
Sex refers to sex assigned at birth. Sex is typically assigned based on a person's reproductive system and other physical characteristics.
Notice how the first source mentions nothing about reproductive system while the second one does and the second source says nothing about sex hormones or sex chromosomes. That’s WP:SYN.CycoMa (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Tewdar, regarding your 19:21 comment, I am warning you to cease the accusations per WP:NPA. I've probably reverted CycoMa more than you in total across articles. Now, it looks like we actually agree. Your main point appears to be that "sex" is defined as biological, and I agree with that. No need to talk about gametes in the lead. If you are happy with that, then we're good to go. So can we merge that third sentence with the first? Crossroads -talk- 19:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
::::***"such as"*** is used. You have a bizarre interpretation of WP:SYN. Tewdar (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
What accusations? He asked for your help earlier. Now you are helping, no? Also, I don't know what the result of a merge will be. Why not try it and see? Tewdar (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Tewdar Crossroads was here way before I asked help from him.CycoMa (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Tewdar you used [this] as a source for this sentence In this context, sex is used to refer to a biological trait involving chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy, while gender refers to the cultural and psychological significance of those differences, and to the attributes and behaviours associated with masculinity and femininity.
The definition of sex [this source] is using says nothing about sex chromosomes or hormones. This is obviously original research.CycoMa (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Get someone else here to verify that the sentence is OR. Tewdar (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Um WP:SYN is a form of original research.CycoMa (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I tried it. And I am obviously watching this page. My commenting here would have happened regardless of his post. And I have no intention to support any proposal or point of his I wouldn't have agreed with anyway. So yes, that was inappropriate. Crossroads -talk- 19:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Seriously this is kind of getting ridiculous. If this continues we are gonna have to take this to original research noticeboard.CycoMa (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

No, that's just going to overcomplicate it at this point. Right now we're at this which seems fine. Even if the old stuff comes back we can hammer out something I think. Crossroads -talk- 20:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh my lord every time I edit on articles like this I always start huge controversies. It’s honestly kind of tiring and funny at the same time.CycoMa (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Ridiculous. Tewdar (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
@CycoMa - Not really understanding the subject you are discussing is quite likely to cause controversy, I expect. Tewdar (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
To be honest with you, the sociology perspective on gender really doesn't interest me that much.CycoMa (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
But, I know what original research is.CycoMa (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
"the sociology perspective on gender really doesn't interest me that much" - Yes, I can tell.
"But, I know what original research is" - No. Even Firefangledfeathers wondered what your problem is. Tewdar (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Look the issue I was having is that the sources you provided sources didn't support the claim in the sentence.CycoMa (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Butchery or edit warring?

The past 3 days has born witness to 60 edits to this article and it is not much improved imo. My specific gripes are:

  • The lead sentence should use "distinct". That it may be distinguished is not the same thing. Sex and gender are distinct concepts in medicine, social science, and biology.
  • Likewise, the statement Many physiologists and biologists agree that gender is distinct from sex should be restored. There is clear consensus from academic bodies (AMA, APA, ASA, etc.) on this.

EvergreenFir (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Just give me a minute to put that in.CycoMa (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
"Sex and gender are distinct concepts in medicine, social science, and biology" - yes. But the context needs to be made clear, just saying they are distinct is not good enough.
"Many physiologists and biologists agree that gender is distinct from sex should be restored" - it could be combined with the sentence about how they are distinct in social and behavioural science, law, etc.,no? Tewdar (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
For the lead, I think it's good enough. We describe the distinction throughout the rest of the article.
Combining is fine with me. I think it's important to show the wide consensus on this topic. I am open various methods of stating it. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't think "is distinct" is a fair summary, given the amount of conflation and confusion in biology, psychology, law, and everyday language§. Tewdar (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I think "may be distinguished" is good because it is common, even in some RS as a result, to use the words for the same thing. And for the vast majority of people, their sex is identical to their gender category. The following sentences then make clear that they are distinct concepts among relevant experts. Crossroads -talk- 03:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
As with some earlier responders, I think "may distinguish" is probably best for the first sentence, but I support strong (probably stronger than status quo) statements of the distinction being the majority view in specific fields/contexts. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Just to weigh in, I think is distinct is correct for the lede and elsewhere in the article, because the only reliable sources for "is not distinct" represent distinctly minority views in their respective fields.
And re:Tewdar, I don't think the amount of conflation and confusion in biology, psychology, law, and everyday language is all that considerable, based on the available sourcing. There was indeed a documented trend in biology and health sciences, where authors were mislabelling sex variables as gender, but this has largely been apprehended and the tide has turned. And in everyday language, one recent consequence of the culture wars is that even paleo spokespeople are having to specify what they mean by sex and/or gender. So I am just not seeing any reason to waffle here; the objections to the distinction have become more and more esoteric IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
How's about: "Sex and gender are distinct terms"? I would personally be happy with that. Well, today I would, anyway. Perhaps I'm in a good mood. Tewdar (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
As long as it is immediately followed by something like, "in this context, sex==biology stuff and gender = sociocultural stuff (gender identities/roles) - deal or no deal? Tewdar (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm fine with the second thing; I'm afraid the first runs afoul of ISAWORDFOR, at least to my ear. Newimpartial (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
It is stylistically similar to "A person's sex may be distinguished from their gender...", no? Tewdar (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Wait, what do you mean by "the first/second thing"? Tewdar (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
If you mean "sex=biology" IAWF, we need to specify "biological/anatomy type stuff" so we are clear we aren't trying to provide a biologists definition of sex here. Tewdar (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I think you were right the first time; the second thing is your "as long as it is immediately followed by" statement, capisce?
My problem with the first thing is the introduction of the term, "term". This is my ISAWORDFOR problem: this article is (correctly) mostly about the distinction between sex and gender as phenomena, and not sex and gender as "terms". Newimpartial (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I think saying "sex and gender are distinct" implies that there may be no relationship between them, which is definitely a minority viewpoint. Tewdar (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Even Evergreenfir above introduced a qualification: "Sex and gender are distinct concepts in medicine, social science, and biology" Tewdar (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
If I ask anyone who didn't study sociology what gender is, they have no clue what I'm talking about. Tewdar (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

"...are analysed as distinct phenomena..."? Tewdar (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

So... "Sex and gender are analysed as distinct phenomena. Within the context of this distinction, "sex" refers to biological differences between males and females, while gender refers to sociocultural distinctions between masculinity and femininity, such as gender identity and gender roles"? Tewdar (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I feel like this is a trip back into the weeds. "Distinct" does not imply "unrelated" - the most basic dictionary definition for "distinct" is "distinguished as not being the same; not identical", which is exactly what is meant here. Sex is not identical to gender, though they are (complexly) related, which the article is then intended to parse. Your suggestion that they are analyzed as ... distinct is unhelpful, because it puts the emphasis on the analysis - the distinction between sex and gender exists before it is analyzed, as all the scholarship about gender roles, gender identity, and for that matter everyday life in much of the world only serves to confirm.
Additionally, your proposal introduces the false premise that "males and females" are terms referring to sex rather than gender, which the reliable sources do not support, and puts even more weight on "masculinity and femininity" than the current lede - and that was already behind the literature as it sat ten years ago.
Also, if I ask any 12 year old in my social circle what sex at birth and gender are, they know exactly what I'm talking about, so I conclude that anecdotes aren't particularly helpful. Newimpartial (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
" "sex" refers to biological differences between males and females" doesn't imply that gender can't refer to socio-cultural differences between males and females. Tewdar (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Not exactly, but it sets up that expectation quite a bit more forcefully than "sex is distinct from gender" sets up "sex is unrelated to gender", particularly with the false parallel construction males:females::masculinity:femininity. Newimpartial (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
"Sex and gender are *differentiated* blah blah biology blah blah sociocultural blah blah..."? Tewdar (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Something like "are analysed as distinct phenomena" seems fine to me, but I don't see any issue with "may be distinguished". It's not saying they aren't distinct, it's just that a number of contexts don't distinguish them, and over-emphasizing the distinctness could confuse. Crossroads -talk- 05:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I think is distinct is best. may be distinguished is weird, awkward phrasing and comes across as weaselly (anything "may" be distinguished - by who?) We already cover the blurriness common usage further down the article, but we ought to lead with the formal / academic definitions, which are more clear. --Aquillion (talk) 08:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, I suggested "...are distinguished" a very long time ago, but apparently this wasn't strong enough. "...are distinct", with no context, suggests a degree of separation that just does not exist, and suggests that human input or analysis is not even required for the distinction, which is apparantly a natural law that was just waiting to be discovered by sexologists and social scientists in the 20th century. Tewdar (talk) 08:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Outside of a few parts of mathematics and formal logic, all distinctions require human input; I don't think that saying that distinctions exist in biological or sociological fields implies that those distinctions are natural laws. That is to say that all distinctions made in sociology and macro-scale biology are ultimately human interpretations in some sense. In country we say a country is a distinct territorial body or political entity, we don't say a country may be distinguished as a distinct territorial body or political entity. If you accept that the distinction is broadly accepted and used by modern sexologists and social scientists, then our lead should reflect it as fact and not present it as opinion or treat it as ambiguous. --Aquillion (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
And just look at all the nuance used here: https://www.genderedinnovations.se/page/en-US/33/Analyzing_how_Sex_and_Gender_Interact Tewdar (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
That definition of "country" used is a recent change not even a year old. I prefer the earlier versions of that page, which were more informative and did not use the word "distinct". Tewdar (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Look at the "Phoneme" article, for example. Phonemes are distinct (contrastive) units of sound *in particular languages*, but without this qualifying remark, the claim is false. Tewdar (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, the vast majority of formal /academic definitions simply do not describe the distinction in this way; just one, from SAGE Encyclopedia of Gender and society: "SEX VERSUS GENDER CATEGORIZATION: Sex and gender, though related, are two distinct concepts" - note that this is exactly the kind of nuance that NewImpartial objected to above. Tewdar (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

https://www.genderedinnovations.se/page/en-US/33/Analyzing_how_Sex_and_Gender_Interact - ""Sex" and "gender" are distinguished for analytical purposes" - also language similar to that objected to above... Tewdar (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Understanding Human Sexuality - McGraw-Hill Education - "sex and gender are conceptually different" Tewdar (talk) 09:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Studying Men and Masculinities - Buchbinder - "'Sex' and 'gender' are often used interchangeably, although, as we shall see, there are key meanings that distinguish each from the other' Tewdar (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Health Psychology: Well-Being in a Diverse World (Gurung) - "remember that sex and gender are not identical constructs, although the two are often treated interchangeably" Tewdar (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

(I am not cherry picking:I am searching for "sex and gender are...", and putting them here regardless) Tewdar (talk) 09:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Intersex, and Queer Psychology: An Introduction (Ellis et al.) - "although sometimes used interchangeably in the literature, the terms sex and gender are distinct" Tewdar (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Evaluating Evidence in Biological Anthropology: The Strange and the Familiar (Willermet, Lee) "from this perspective, sex and gender are not equivalent, although they overlap significantly in their perceived binary categories" Tewdar (talk) 09:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The Equal Curriculum: The Student and Educator Guide to LGBTQ Health (Lehman et al.) - "sex and gender are not synonymous...sex and gender are not interchangeable words or concepts" Tewdar (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

On the Offensive: Prejudice in Language Past and Present (Stollznow) "sex and gender are often used interchangeably, although there is a distinction between the two" Tewdar (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The Futures of Feminism (Bryson) - "Today, 'sex' and 'gender' are often used loosely and interchangeably both in everyday and official use and by some feminist writers" Tewdar (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Gender Confirmation Surgery: Principles and Techniques for an Emerging Field (Schechter) - "Sex and gender are different" Tewdar (talk) 10:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Pink Tax and the Law: Discriminating Against Women Consumers (Yazıcıoğlu) - "'Gender' and 'sex' are entirely different concepts, and not distinguishing between them creates an 'unfortunate terminological gap'" Tewdar (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Inferior: how science got women wrong - and the new research that's rewriting the story (Saini) - "In academic circles at least, gender and sex are now recognised as two different things." Tewdar (talk) 10:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity-and Why This Harms Everybody (Pluckrose & Lindsay) "[Butler] argued extensively that gender and sex are distinct and that there is no necessary correlation between the two" Tewdar (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Women and Politics: A Quest for Political Equality in an Age of Economic Inequality (Tillery & Burrell) - "The concepts of sex and gender are distinct. Sex is biological, whereas gender is socially constructed" Tewdar (talk) 10:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I posted a hypothetical version of the dispute above to the original research noticeboard, and someone said it looked like a "hypothetical question crafted to claim pre-approval for inserting transphobic "gender critical" claims into Wikipedia by selectively citing sources" ☹️ Tewdar (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

APA contradicting themselves

Okay I notice Tewdar added this into the article. The American Psychiatric Association states that sex is often described as a biological construct, "defined on an anatomical, hormonal, or genetic basis", and assigned at birth based on external genitalia.[43]

One of the (context dependant) guidelines used by the American Psychological Association states that "[t]here are a number of indicators of biological sex, including sex chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive organs, and external genitalia."[45]

I am not saying the APA isn't a reliable source on the matter but, this is indeed a contradiction. Like the second one mentions genitalia while the first one doesn't. It should also be kept in mind the first one uses a source that's for patients with Gender Dysphoria while the Second one uses a source for LGBTQ+ people.CycoMa (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

It could be possible that the APA changed their minds for other reasons.CycoMa (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: Psychiatric != psychological... see the difference? There are 2 APAs! 😁 Tewdar (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Also, nb "context dependant"... Tewdar (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
@Tewdar: Did the APA say that their definitions were different due to the context of the sources?CycoMa (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cyco,there's a table for different contexts, source is there I think Tewdar (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: Those are two different organisations. Tewdar is quoting from the American Psychiatric Association. The American Psychological Association is a similarly named body, for a different field. Psychiatry and psychology are not the same. There is not contradiction here as the two bodies are speaking from different perspectives of psychology versus psychiatry. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
    • APA also say "Terms related to sexual orientation and gender diversity have been defined in several APA documents. Due to the developing understanding of constructs, shifting usage of terms, and contextual focus of these documents, the definitions vary somewhat. This resource provides definitions and their sources. Please cite the source using references provided below." So yeah, they *do* say that! Any more observations? Tewdar (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • "This is indeed a contradiction" - LOL! Yeah, it is, if you don't know the difference between psychology and psychiatry... Tewdar (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't see the contradiction. Everything in the second description is a subcategory of the first ("gonads, internal reproductive organs, and external genitalia" = anatomical, "sex chromosomes" = genetic), and the second description is specifically worded to not be exhaustive ("there are a number of indicators... including..."). Additionally, they're descriptions of subtly different things intended for different purposes (the first one is how biological sex is often defined, the second one describes some of the more specific indicators that are used to categorize people according to that definition.) I feel that the first one is better for our purposes due to being broader and expressing a general definition rather than just enumerating some things that are used to determine it, but there's no contradiction between the two. --Aquillion (talk) 01:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association (both abbreviated to APA, for some insane reason) are two separate organizations. jp×g 08:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion: for some reason, some of the editors here have a bizarre interpretation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. For example, if one source says "anatomy", and another says, "genitalia", and I summarise this as "anatomical features", these editors blow a gasket, claim there is a contradiction, accuse me of SYNTH, and threaten me with the NO OR Noticeboard. Tewdar (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Or like: Def 1: "a b c", def 2:"a b c d",def 3: "a b c d e" > "This may be defined in various ways, such as a b c d e" is apparently unacceptable... Tewdar (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sex–gender_distinction/Archive_4&oldid=1143559094"