Talk:Sex differences in human physiology

Fausto-Sterling and Birke as sources

@EvergreenFir: These are feminist ideological texts which may or may not align with mainstream consensus with broad spectrum of views of medical and biological practitioners. If their views are representative of wider consensus, it should be trivial to replace them with texts that are not ideological screeds. 87.113.27.52 (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:BIASED. That the texts are feminist is not an issue. They are academic and considered WP:RS. They are not WP:FRINGE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I note that Blanchard, Bailey and Zucker are academics who have doubtlessly published numerous sources. From what I can see (quite rightly) that the Transsexual does not treat their work uncritically. Anne Fausto-Sterling is a Professor of Biology and Gender Studies. That second field is of a political nature. Yes, the fact they are feminist certainly is an issue: science is not an ideology. It is not appropriate to have political texts as sources in a scientific article. 87.113.27.52 (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I really need to make an FAQ about this. That an academic is feminist does not mean their work is not scientific. Science is based on ideology and ontology (hence the philosophy of science). Social sciences and interdisciplinary scholars (biology and gender studies in this case) cannot be excluded because you disagree with their world views. Again the sources are allowed to take a stance (WP:BIASED), we must reflect those source neutrally (WP:NPOV). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Brain size

The current sources do not actually corroborate the claim that, when accounting for stature and weight, men and women have brains of equal size.
In fact, one of the sources, the book by Doreen Kimura, directly contradicts this!
Source https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222481902_Corrections_to_a_paper_on_race_and_sex_differences_in_brain_size_and_intelligence which at one point was in a pre-version of this article, talks specifically about only this point and also states the opposite of what is written in this article. It's only topic is the correction of an earlier ERROR which was the same claim as the one in this article.
Is this another feminist attack? 188.194.171.21 (talk) 05:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

"Is this another feminist attack?" ... right, moving on... why exactly are the sources not applicable? Pages 127-129 of Kimura (see here) clearly support the statement. The source you give is one, primary source. I'm not sure why you think that trumps the other three? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

So it's the number of sources in your opinion? The fact that this one source directly challenges this one point, while the other sources are broad summarizations written for the layman, doesn't matter, even if they were to corroborate the claim of the article (which they do not)? Does any of the math or arguments in "my" one source not check out? 188.194.171.21 (talk) 11:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Did you even read the source you are citing? Let me do it for you: "To control for this effect Ankney (1992) compared men and women of the same size and found that throughout the range of sizes, men's brains are about 100 grams heavier than women's. This means that, on average, a man and a woman of the same body size would still have a 100-gram difference in brain size." Page 128 of the book "Sex and Cognition".

THIS is why I said the sources don't apply, they state the opposite of what is written in this article. 188.194.171.21 (talk) 11:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I read it and I see the part you're talking about now. The part I focused on was "It used to be thought that this was simply accounted for by differences in body size; and in fact if one compages the ratio of brain-to-body size, there is no sex differences. Some, however, have argued that this does not tell the whole story, because this ratio decreases in humans as body size increases. Thus, larger women have smaller brain-to-body ratios than smaller women do." As for the researchgate link, we prefer WP:SECONDARY sources to WP:PRIMARY ones. Your current edits look find though. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Sexual organs and reproductive systems

The article states "The female orgasm was believed to have no obvious function other than to be pleasurable although some evidence suggests that it may have evolved as a discriminatory advantage in regards to mate selection". However, the article Vaginal contraction states "It has been suggested that vaginal contractions during orgasm can increase the chances of pregnancy as they transport sperm up the reproductive tract from the vagina to the oviducts, which decreases the distance it has to travel. Additionally, when the woman is fertile sperm is only transported to the side of the dominant ovary". So should this suggestion be included as a further possibility? Coyets (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article Cervix states "A theory states the cervical and uterine contractions during orgasm draw semen into the uterus. Although the "upsuck theory" has been generally accepted for some years, it has been disputed due to lack of evidence, small sample size, and methodological errors". So this seems to be a disputed theory, but one possibly worth mentioning. Coyets (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I am no expert on the subject, and I don't have a source, but it seems that an obvious evolutionary advantage of female orgasm is that the contractions and other climactic motions could stimulate males to orgasm. Is this too obvious to mention? I must not be the first person to notice that one partner's orgasm can trigger the other's! -- ☑ SamuelWantman 02:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Newest research on Sex differences in the Human Brain

A fantastic paper was published only a few days ago - April 4th, 2017 - which concerned the largest single-sample study of structural and functional sex differences in the human brain to date (over 5,000 subjects). This wiki page is really quite detailed already, and I haven't yet parsed both the paper and this page well enough to determine what exactly, if anything, needs to be added or changed... but I figured this paper might come in handy for anyone with an interest in this subject. The paper has a great deal of information about specific connectivity and structural differences in various subregions of the brain. It's titled "Sex Differences In The Adult Human Brain: Evidence From 5,216 UK Biobank Participants" http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/04/04/123729 Bzzzing (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/310/63
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604094727/https://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10042&mode=toc to https://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10042&mode=toc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Male orgasm (and thus ejaculation) essential for conception

The article is currently using a qualifier in this sentence that is unnecessary in the context of this article:

> Male orgasm is nearly essential ("nearly" as small amounts of sperm can be found in pre-ejaculate released before orgasm is reached) for reproduction, whereas female orgasm is not.

Pre-ejaculate is produced from the Cowper's glands and contains no sperm. There is a conception that it can pick up sperm as it moves to the tip of the penis, perhaps left over from previous ejaculations. However this would be accidental (not functional physiology) and where it happens the ability of any such low levels of sperm which have not been freshly released from the testes to cause a pregnancy is unclear and probably extremely unlikely to completely non-viable. Anyway, we are not running a contraception advice line in this article. For the purposes of this article a clear statement that male ejaculation is necessary for conception is all that is needed. For the source of the myth of the dangers of pre-ejaculate (which was Masters & Johnson without any good evidence) and for some studies with small participant numbers into the sperm content of pre-ejaculate see that article. The main point is that this controversial subject should be addressed in more specific subject articles and does not (and should not) need to be raised in this article.

I will be removing the qualifier and parenthetical comment. I would appreciate that my remarks here are addressed before any reversion. Oska (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Oska, regarding this, I see that Benjaminikuta reverted you before you restored your wording and that it's a matter of what is more accurate. We should go with the more accurate wording. I don't have the time to focus on this right now, but it can be brought up at WP:Med and/or WP:Anatomy for more opinions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, here is the essential truth that this article should deal with: for male humans to reproduce they must ejaculate sperm from their testes and those sperm reach and fertilise a female human egg. Ejaculation occurs with male orgasm. Human females do not need to orgasm to get pregnant (they only need their eggs to be fertilised). Thus orgasm is essential for male reproductive success while it is not essential for female reproductive success and that is what the article seeks to contrast and that contrast is entirely appropriate in a discussion of sex differences.

What is not appropriate in the context of this article is caviling about situations where a male might not ejaculate but his pre-ejaculate picks up some sperm from a previous ejaculation and enters a female vagina and gets her pregnant. First, this is in an extreme case and there is not good scientific evidence that this scenario can result in pregnancy. Secondly, and more importantly, even if it did it would still be contingent on a previous ejaculation and orgasm. So it's all moot - male reproduction relies on male ejaculation/orgasm.

Thus I do no think there is any case for a so-called 'more accurate' weakening of the text when such a weakening is not well-supported and misses the point that ejaculation/orgasm still has to occur at some point in time for the sperm to be released. Oska (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Oska, other than what I stated above -- about accuracy (which, yes, while keeping reliable sources and WP:Due weight in mind, is something to consider when writing Wikipedia articles), I'm not getting involved in this dispute. At least not at the moment. There is no need to WP:Ping me to this talk page since this article is on my watchlist. In addition to WP:Due weight, I will leave you and others with the WP:YESPOV policy to keep in mind. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

And take note that I did not state my opinion on what the more accuarate text is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Where accuracy is concerned, I will be very interested to read of any studies that show emission of human sperm from the testes without the muscle contractions brought on by male orgasm. That would be the only place where accuracy would be relevant. Oska (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

What matters are sources. Please provide reliable sources, specifically WP:MEDRS compliant ones. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Last link broken?

I tried the last link, link 125, but it sent me to a 404 on the CIA website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.117.124 (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

US bias in sources

Many sources for average measurements take into account only the United States. They should be replaced with data that represents the whole world. 31.217.18.135 (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

No mention of permanent breasts?

The difference in breasts is mentioned in the introduction of the article very briefly, as part of a single sentence. It is significant to note, however, that humans are the only mammals in which the female has permanent breasts - in all other species, visible breasts are associated with pregnancy/being with young, and actually a signal of (temporary) infertility. Humans have evolved to make this signal permanent, and this bit of sexual dimorphism is unique to us. It deserves a mention. Tsuka (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I have issues with some lines

“Direct sex differences follow a bimodal distribution. Through the process of meiosis and fertilization (with rare exceptions), each individual is created with zero or one Y-chromosome. The complementary result for the X-chromosome follows, either a double or a single X. Therefore, direct sex differences are usually binary in expression (although the deviations in complex biological processes produce a menagerie of exceptions). These include, most conspicuously, male (vs female) gonads.“

“Indirect sex differences are general differences as quantified by empirical data and statistical analysis. Most differing characteristics will conform to a bell-curve (i.e. normal) distribution“

These lines in particular are honestly confusing I have no idea what direct or indirect sex differences mean.

I don’t understand what binary in expression means.

Also these lines don’t have many sources. CycoMa (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the article rather than just the lead. "Binary " means something has just two states: e.g., yes/no, on/off, white/black. Direct sex differences are those that are exclusive to one sex (with rare exceptions). A man has a penis and testicles. A woman does not. A woman has a uterus and ovaries. A man does not. Those are direct sex differences and they are binary. A person either has them, or does not.

Indirect sex differences are traits such as height, weight, and strength. They are not binary. Different people exhibit those traits to varying degrees, and while men tend to be taller and heavier and stronger than women, you cannot say that all women are shorter than all men, or lighter than all men, or weaker than all men. Meters (talk) 05:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Do forgive me this comment is a couple of months old. I didn’t read the whole article back then. So it was my mistake for not understanding what it met. CycoMa (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The lead needs more sources

The lead only uses like one source. It just looks someone was making stuff up here.CycoMa (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Leads are not normally sourced unless there is something particularly controversial. They are supposed to be summaries of the sourced content in the articles' bodies. Is there something in this lead that you are questioning because it is not sourced in the body or that you find particularly controversial? Meters (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

No mention of permanent breasts is unacceptable

This is one of the most distinctive and obvious differences between male and female anatomy, and it is barely mentioned? Honestly, how can this be? It is a vital part on sexual dimorphism in our species and as a fellow user previously mentioned, humans are the only mammals with permanent breasts. Such a huge discussion around the reasons and consequences of this fact, goes by unnoticed? Impacts in societal relations (the possibility of cross-breastfeeding infants, for example, making it easier to feed them in case the mother is absent, and providing for a wider immunologic training), impacts in sexual division of labor (large breasts make some tasks and activities wildly more difficult), visual impacts in sexual recognition (you can tell a woman from very far away if the breasts are distinguishable, this is evolutionarily very relevant), impacts on health (breast cancer is predominantely female for example), the cultural impact of the large breasts imagery (think of the absurdity of Hooters: a business model based on large breasts), and so on and so on. Hell, it could be an article on its own, and it is absurd and shameful to brush off this subject as unimportant in this article.

July 15, 2021 edits

I'm going to name a series of issues with the edits made by EvgFakka (who several of us knew as MordvinEvgen before a recent name change) to this article:

The article said, "With respect to language, males predominantly use their left hemisphere but females use both their right and left hemispheres." EvgFakka said while removing it, "As far as I know, this is outdated information."[1] Well, as far as I know, EvgFakka, there isn't a good resource that says this is outdated. Donna L. Maney's issue with what's commonplace in resources[2] doesn't count since she complains about information that's also found in respectable academic resources and is saying researchers are doing the research wrong and that she's outlined "some traps that researchers face" and suggests "a number of strategies that may help researchers avoid common problems and therefore minimize misinterpretation and misrepresentation of their work." Resources that support the "left hemisphere vs. right and left hemispheres" information include "In the Beginning: The brain, early development and learning", 2012,[3] and "Getting Started with EEG Neurofeedback (Second Edition)", 2019.[4] There are additional recent academic resources that also support it.

EvgFakka added to the article "True, the effect size was about 0.31, which is not a big difference by Cohen's standards."[5] This isn't language that should be in an encyclopedia, and it's an EvgFakka digression. The source is just one woman's (Donna L. Maney's) issue with what's reported in resources. She, like EvgFakka,[6] also complains about Wikipedia. At least "True" was removed by another editor.[7] I have noticed that any time the research reports a female advantage, or what EvgFakka appears to consider a female advantage, on anything to do with biology, he has an issue with it. More often than not, he'll remove it with a questionable claim or diminish it with a claim about how the difference is negligible. If it's about a male advantage, however, he'll more likely than not let that stay or build upon it.

Despite the strong messages that have been delivered to EvgFakka that say he should stop adding primary research, here he's added more such research and has phrased it in a way not found in the sources.[8] Is there a resource that says "According to abundant evidence"? This phraseology is EvgFakka's own, tied to a string of primary resources about individual countries. At least this[9] resource, although judging it by its appearance alone, a person might want to analyze the quality of the journal, takes a look at numerous countries.

I intended to say this much earlier, but it's better late than later, especially if the editor is left with the impression that his edits were unproblematic. Now, in response, I expect him to say a lot of the same said on his talk page, but it's not something I'll debate because I know he shuns the Wikipedia process and insults will probably be included. GBFEE (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I reverted for now. At the time I didn't know that EvgFakka was MordvinEvgen. EvgFakka, listen to the advice you were given at ANI, at articles, and on your talk page by other editors. If problematic editing continues, you will end up at ANI again eventually. Competence is required, meaning competence to follow Wikipedia's rules and not skirt them by adding original research. You have been told what to do and linked to the rules many times by now. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

SorryGBFEE, I decided to take a break, so I haven't visited you for a long time.

First of all, this is good. I accept the first argument because I didn't attach the source. I used to read that this position is a very gross simplification and probably an old misconception, but yes, I did not attach the source, this is my mistake.

I don't need links to your books. I have already studied enough tertiary sources to state the fact that they are imperfect. I have already given examples in discussions. You can write anything you want in the book, also referring to the original source, although it is quite old(an example with the hippocampus is given below). Thus, its objectivity will not be higher than that of the original source(There are SOOO RARE EXCEPTIONS, BUT THIS IS NOT YOUR CASE). This is obvious, and the fact that you don't understand it is sad. As an example, we can cite books that indicate an increase in the hippocampus in women. But MODERN META-ANALYSES and reviews do not support this point of view.[10] We should not forget that books(even scientific ones) are written by people who are not always engaged in science. Many of them simply do not know the subtleties of statistical analysis, effect size, overlap, standard deviation, etc. The second book you pointed to is generally so funny, a reference to a 1998 study, as well as the statement that a woman has a broader outlook on life) Are you serious? My God, what a wrong way of thinking...[11] Such books are no better than the books of Alan Pease, but you don't know that. The claim that women have a broader view of life, because they can supposedly take into account more aspects of situations, simply should not be present in the scientific literature without clear evidence that women In SOME or ALL cases take into account more aspects of life situations, and the reason for this is precisely the differences in the brain between the sexes. As long as there are no such references(I am more than sure that there have NEVER been such references), such a formulation should not be allowed, because this is a very broad definition, and it is doubtful that it is at least partially true. I am more than sure that in a number of everyday situations, men will evaluate aspects of various situations more broadly and objectively. Women can also do this, it depends on the context, and whether it is related to the brain or not, there is no evidence. This should not happen in scientific books. In the course of the study, Donna has already demonstrated the potential of a fantasy about multitasking and so on for one study. How does your book differ from what was written in the 2016 study?

Secondly, yes, I THINK AND AM SURE that the publication of the effect sizes is necessary. This gives a more objective and correct point of view on any position. By the way, this is written by Donna L. Money. Yes, the study wrote about the impact on the academic structure, but the studies cited in it, as well as problems with interpretation in the media, quite smoothly fall on the problem of Wikipedia, because wikipedia is a free source of information, the same pages as in other journals. These pages are also written by ordinary people, not scientists, who many do not understand scientific terminology. And both in the media and in Wikipedia, there are many misconceptions and biases. I think the comparison is clear.

The reason why I mainly publish the size of the effect and note the insignificance of differences between men and women only in cases where women are better is very simple: people like you just hyperbolize these very differences(an example with empathy). The second reason is that in men, the effect sizes were indicated by many before me(for example, the differences in spatial skills, where the effect sizes were indicated before me, are taken from a meta-analysis). At the same time, for some reason, no one has specified the size of the effects in verbal skills, and, according to meta-analyses, they are quite modest, even trivial in a number of qualities(I had to clarify and add a meta-analysis).

Third. if you claim that I have formulated a point of view that does not coincide with the source, then give examples, and do not just refer to my publication. This is as stupid as it can be. I can't read your confused thoughts and I can't understand what you mean. It is especially stupid to hear this from a person who confuses the primary source with a review and meta-analysis(I also mean your stupid statements in the "Empathy" section, when the 2001 meta-analysis, which included 15 studies, was called the primary source). I'm more confused that editors like you have no problems with their edits. If you think that you are doing the right thing, then, alas, no. I'll need to make a lot of edits after you, but right now I'm just too lazy. I was disappointed in wikipedia and its editors, because they are somewhat, hmm, okay, let's omit the rudeness, otherwise you are vulnerable and will immediately run to complain)

This is followed by an answer at the Crossroads. Unfortunately, it's not my style to obey erroneous rules. I accept a number of rules, for example, to give priority to secondary sources(this is the right approach, although secondary sources are not without drawbacks), and I do it. I also published a meta-analysis of gender differences in memory for places where others did not have it, I published a meta-analysis of verbal abilities and much more. It's just that meta-analyses are not available everywhere, and they do not always express an objective position. But once again, I agree with wikipedia on this point of view. From another point of view, I am ready, again rudeness, hmm, to disagree with Wikipedia. Moreover, its policy of tertiary sources and the lack of a policy of specifying the size of the effect and other things is simply terrible. The phrase "women are more empathic" is literally misleading, because not everyone has identified such a difference, And how can the reader understand this statement? Are all women more empathetic than all men? Or is it on average, and if on average, how much? All these issues are solved by publishing the effect sizes. Empathy is a broad term, in some aspects men have an advantage(for example, in some types of emotions, such as anger). Or the wording that women have a higher EQ is also incorrect, because the EQ has scales where at some points(for example, emotion control), according to some data, men have more points, according to other differences, they may not be or they are not great, and this may be in favor of women. It is also worth noting that there are many scales for evaluating emotional intelligence, which makes it difficult to interpret the results. Specifying the magnitude of the effect is the most important, especially for meta-analysis, because the purpose of meta-analysis is simply to show the degree of kinship or differences and, of course (this is not found in all meta-analyses), to show the heterogeneity of the results, to identify the causes of heterogeneity, methodological nuances, etc. The topic is complex.. EvgFakka (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

EvgFakka, okay, I'll reply to you this time. But your break included you making edits to neuroscience of sex differences as an IP.[12][13] A user on your tail did a rvt on your edits.[14] They also did a rvt on your edits before.[15]

This isn't about the hippocampus in women or men, but you cited one meta-analysis above me, not meta-analyses and reviews.

The author description for "Getting Started with EEG Neurofeedback (Second Edition)", 2019, says, "John N. Demos, MA, LCMHC, BCIA-EEG, is the Clinical Director of Neurofeedback of Southern Vermont, a complementary therapies clinic located in Brattleboro, VT. He is a licensed clinical mental health counselor and is certified in the field of EEG-biofeedback. He is also a member of the Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback as well as of the International Society for Neuronal Regulation." So he doesn't appear to be someone who does "not know the subtleties of statistical analysis, effect size, overlap, standard deviation." He's not an "ordinary person" with no knowledge of what he's writing about. Why do you think you know better or more than the experts or people with academic degrees in their field? What qualifications do you have that top theirs? Your layperson knowledge that is at conflict with what they report is more trustworthy? Further, just like Maney will give her opinion or speculate on the research, Demos will give his opinion or speculate on the research. His opinions and speculations don't need to be cited as fact, and they shouldn't be. But "with respect to language, males predominantly use their left hemisphere but females use both their right and left hemispheres" is reported in many respectable resources. So this isn't Demos's opinion alone. It's delivered as fact in resources. The author he quoted was making a suggestion that women have a broader outlook on life, and that author said "in some ways." He didn't say they have a broader view in all cases. That author also claims that men are more focused. It does look like Demos believes what that author says about "broader view of life", but it's not Demos saying it. I'll grant you that neurofeedback research has more issues to be concerned about than some other areas of study.

Your "Perils and pitfalls of reporting sex differences" resource, 2016, says the author's name is Donna L. Maney [16] An Internet search also shows the person to have this name. So I don't know why you're trying to correct me on her name by calling her "Donna L. Money", but it shows that going on what you say leaves much to be desired. Further, Maney seems to use "media" broadly, because what she complains about is also found in respectable and reputable academic resources (as I've said already), and she also criticizes those.

You said the reason why you "mainly publish the size of the effect and note the insignificance of differences between men and women only in cases where women are better is very simple". It's because people like me "just hyperbolize these very differences". People like me? Huh? And reporting what the tertiary and secondary resources say is hyperbolizing the research? And so to push back, you make it a point to diminish the cases "where women are better" and rarely diminish the cases where "men are better"? I think you have a different reason for often removing or minimizing findings where "where women are better."

You claim that I confuse primary resources with reviews and meta-analyses, and an example is when I called a 2001 meta-analysis that included 15 studies a primary source. I don't. You started to add meta-analyses after complaints that you were adding primary resources, but you still add primary resources. When you mix in primary resources with your edits, then it's apparent that I'm talking about the primary resources when I say "primary resources." I can see when you've added a meta-analysis. However, your additions of meta-analyses aren't helpful when you're synthesizing what they say. Additionally, if a meta-analysis says one thing and a systematic review says the opposite, it's questionable to defer to the meta-analysis over the systematic review or to give the meta-analysis the same weight. Although a meta-analysis is sometimes described as a type of systematic review (or an extension of it), they're still distinguished. They have different research methods.[17][18] Also, "However, well planned the systematic review or meta-analysis is, if the quality of evidence in the studies is low, the quality of the meta-analysis decreases and incorrect results can be obtained."[19] I know what primary resources are. In your statement above, you're carefree in belittling and dismissing me. You once again prioritize primary resources over better resources, despite your claim that you "accept a number of rules, for example, to give priority to secondary sources (this is the right approach, although secondary sources are not without drawbacks)." I'll address this in the next paragraph.

You don't understand why primary resources are lower, not higher, quality. If you read Wikipedia's explanation on biological/medical research, they say, "Primary sources should NOT normally be used as a basis for biomedical content. This is because primary biomedical literature is exploratory and often not reliable (any given primary source may be contradicted by another). Any text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal weight, only describe conclusions made by the source, and describe these findings so clearly that any editor can check the sourcing without the need for specialist knowledge. Primary sources should never be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors (see WP:Synthesis). Primary sources should not be cited with intent of 'debunking', contradicting, or countering conclusions made by secondary sources. Synthesis of published material advancing a position is original research, and Wikipedia is not a venue for open research. Controversies or uncertainties in medicine should be supported by reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. Primary sources should not be aggregated or presented without context in order to undermine proportionate representation of opinion in a field. If material can be supported by either primary or secondary sources – the secondary sources should be used. Primary sources may be presented together with secondary sources. Findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as primary research is reported, before the scientific community has analyzed and commented on the results. Therefore, such sources should generally be omitted (see recentism). Determining weight of studies requires reliable secondary sources (not press releases or newspaper articles based on such sources). If conclusions are worth mentioning (such as large randomized clinical trials with surprising results), they should be described appropriately as from a single study. Given time a review will be published, and the primary sources should preferably be replaced with the review. Using secondary sources then allows facts to be stated with greater reliability. A reason to avoid primary sources in the biomedical field – especially papers reporting results of in vitro experiments – is that they are often not replicable and are therefore unsuitable for use in generating encyclopedic, reliable biomedical content."[20][21]

As for your "attempt" to try to avoid rudeness in your most recent statement, too late. You insulted me multiple times in the statement, and this includes your use of "stupid." I'm not going to go complain. I said this would happen. It's one reason I can't talk to you about the editing mistakes you're making. The other is because you mostly refuse to "obey" the Wikipedia process. GBFEE (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

"First of all, it's good. I accept the first argument because I didn't attach the source. I used to read that this position is a very gross simplification and probably an old misconception, but yes, I did not attach the source, this is my mistake." - - - - - - No, it was about the hippocampus. I have made a lot of rules, I will not deny that some edits may be wrong, but then you need to correct those edits that are not correct. Don't worry. There are reviews and large brain studies in 2018 and 2021 (I'm too lazy to look for links right now). The difference in the hippocampus, adjusted for the size of the brain and skull, is absent or insignificant. Without corrections, it is more in men. At the moment, this is an advanced point of view. but someone, for example, in a 2018 study on gender differences in memory, cites studies where the hippocampus was larger in women. A sample of 20 people. STRONGLY I would say) But at the moment, I have already said that the hippocampus is the same in size with all adjustments +- in men and women. It was just one of my main edits, so I focused on it. At the same time, I attached a large meta-analysis. But again, you don't like it, it's interesting...

About your director or whatever his name is. I criticize the way he presents information. Okay, there may be differences, and there may not be. Here you need to get acquainted with the primary sources and reviews of sex differences in the brain. This is hundreds of studies. I said it. His stupid statements that women have a broader view of life in some aspects of life, and they say that their bilateral activation is to blame for this. This goes beyond the scope of neurophysiology. If he is a neurophysiologist, then there is nothing to delve into things that he does not understand. I have already read studies on the laterization of the hemispheres(about the connection within or between the hemispheres). The authors made a lot of trouble, the media picked up and began to fan the hype about multitasking even more (they say that women are better) and so on. Explain this by the fact that women have more connections between the hemispheres(as I said, the Cohen effect is small). Needless to say, most of these claims were simply empirically refuted. We don't really know how differences in the brain lead to differences in behavior. The hypothesis of Gert De Vries also suggests compensation for behavioral differences due to differences in the brain. There are studies in which there were no differences in behavior (cognitive outcomes) with differences in activation, and when there were no differences in brain activation, there were differences in behavior (cognitive outcomes). There are many hypotheses, and they have both confirmation and refutation. Therefore, when scientists write, and not impostors, they avoid such unfounded statements. They only state, in your opinion, the fact that when using language, men use the left hemisphere more, and women use both hemispheres. By the way, there is data similar to these, but about spatial skills, where exactly men use two hemispheres, and women use one. It's not clear yet. These are isolated studies. And, by the way, I am more than sure that this position arose as a result of one study. There is hardly a meta-analysis that would analyze exclusively the activation of the brain when performing language tasks. This is a narrow specificity of the brain, and such differences are usually noted in isolated studies. Although I may be wrong. If your author of that book criticized the statement about a greater view of life among women as an unfounded and false statement that is not based on anything, then there are no claims against your author of the book, but claims against the author of the study.

And yes, by the way, the classification of the hemispheres is also a rather controversial topic. Well, about the fact that the left hemisphere is responsible for one thing, the right for the other. But right now we will not argue on this topic. It will take a long time.

"On the resource "Your" Dangers and Traps associated with reporting sexual differences", 2016, it is said that the author's name is Donna L. Maney [16] An Internet search also shows that a person has this name. So I do not know why you are trying to correct me in her name by calling her "Donna L. Money", but it shows that what you are saying leaves much to be desired. In addition, Manny seems to use "media" extensively, because what she complains about can also be found in respectable and reputable academic resources (as I said before), and she also criticizes them. " - - - - Sorry, I don't understand you. English is not my native language, and perhaps I have formulated this idea incorrectly. I didn't correct you about her name. I just really like her research and her position is close to mine. I didn't mean anything against her research or her name, and I didn't correct you.

"You said that the reason why you" basically publish the size of the effect and note the insignificance of the differences between men and women only in cases where women are better is very simple." This is because people like me "just hyperbolize these very differences." People like me? And to report what the tertiary and secondary resources say is an exaggeration of the research? And so, to step back, you set yourself the goal of reducing the cases when "women are better", and rarely reduce the cases when "men are better"? I think you have another reason to often delete or minimize the results, where "where women are better". - - - - - - Yes, tertiary sources do not indicate the size of the effect, automatically exaggerating their significance. Take the effect size in d=0.11 of Cohen's verbal abilities from the meta-analysis. The effect is trivial. But most books formulate their position as if the differences are global and fundamental. As for secondary sources, I did not say that they exaggerate the results of research. It's just that secondary sources are much more valuable than your books and your DIRECTORS. They publish methods for selecting studies(many studies may be of poor quality). They can publish patterns, for example, differences in memory for location determination. According to the meta-analysis, the differences in favor of women with a small effect size d=0.26. But a pattern was also revealed in which the memory for location is better in men. This is very valuable material, because he stated the fact that the differences in memory for locations depend on the task and research methods. You feel the difference when they just say that someone has something better. Or when they say that someone has something a little better with a small effect size with an overlap of 90%, but at the same time in some cases the result is the opposite and the result depends on the measurement methods? The difference is simply global. And about the fact that I delete something? Yes, I delete it if something causes controversy. Sometimes I'm wrong. But I publish the effect sizes wherever they are missing. Not all studies just use Cohen's d and g. For this reason, I can't fix them everywhere, and not all studies are publicly available, so I use what is available.

It seems to me that you are deaf and blind to my statements. Yes, I publish meta-analyses and primary sources. This does not negate the fact that this position of the meta-analysis has a large range of confirmations, there are simply primary sources that are older than the meta-analysis and that confirm its position. Or in connection with meta-analysis, they confirm a certain position. This does not interfere much, because there are both primary and secondary sources. About the system review. Yes, I have seen your meta-analysis (more precisely, a systematic review) refer to a Baron-Cohen study that has never been empirically verified (part of his research). I have also read objective and mass criticism of his hypothesis. This was not taken into account in your systematic review. It's just one time. Secondly, there is a matanalysis, there are many confirmations of his position, and this is a fact. It is worth publishing this data as one of the positions, even if the systematic review does not agree with the position of the meta-analysis. The impact of differences on empathy from society, culture, expectations and much more is a FACT. You have taken the liberty to claim that there is a biological reason for differences in empathy and that there are no other reasons. This is very stupid, and the questions are meant for you... But there is a lot of data that suggests that this is not true(or a very gross simplification). A smart person will publish several positions, as it should be done. And you will publish only one position, which is partially based on the Baron-Cohen theory, the criticism of which exists and it is acceptable. You can talk about this topic for a long time, but you are deaf and blind to me, so there is no point in doing this. Also, yes, I publish the main resources. But, alas,there are not always meta-analyses or reviews. This is a fact. They don't exist everywhere. And where there is no meta-analysis of some narrow behaviors or patterns of the brain. Then it is acceptable to publish the primary sources at this stage, as an ASSUMPTION. Wikipedia positions itself not as a search for Truth, but as the formation of points of view or CONSENSUS. Only your approach does not imply a consensus on the causes of differences in empathy. IT WAS YOU WHO DECIDED TO BRAZENLY DECLARE THAT THE REASONS FOR DIFFERENCES IN EMPATHY LIE IN BIOLOGY, AND THAT'S ALL. Questions for you and your ego. I just want to present different points of view. And there are a lot of them, and scientists have not come to a consensus. Even if there is a reason in biology, biology, genetics is influenced by external environmental factors. This is widely known. And it is unwise to simply exclude external factors from this equation, talking only about internal ones. So when I say that you are exaggerating the differences. Then I am not speaking without thoroughness. That's exactly what you're doing. You and most of the Wikipedia editors. Of course, there are others like me. After all, someone before me put the magnitude of the effect in the gender differences in spatial skills, for which I thank such people, because they saved me from unnecessary work.

"And so to push back, you make it a point to diminish the cases "where women are better" and rarely diminish the cases where "men are better"? I think you have a different reason for often removing or minimizing findings where "where women are better." ---- "And so, in order to retreat, you set yourself the goal of reducing the cases when "women are better", and rarely reduce the cases when "men are better"? I think you have another reason to often delete or minimize conclusions about "where women are better". - - - - I do not reduce the differences in where women are better. I could find data in which there are no differences in verbal abilities, and there are a lot of them. But I have attached a meta-analysis that says that yes, women are better than men in some verbal abilities, but the effect size is extremely small. This contradicts your statement. The differences in memory are the same. I applied the meta-analysis from memory to the places where it was not there before my arrival. And I did not deny that this meta-analysis revealed differences in favor of women. I just noted that with certain data and methods, the differences change in favor of men. But I didn't dispute the small advantages of women found in this meta-analysis. I applied a meta-analysis of the sex differences in the sense of smell, and I did not dispute that these differences were in favor of women. I have just noted that the effect size is extremely small(from 0.08 to 0.30). Your accusations are groundless. If you are so concerned, why do I indicate the size of the effect more often where it is said about women. I have already answered, about men (the main topic is differences in spatial abilities), the size of the effects has already been shown. In some aspects of memory, etc., the size of the effects may not be specified. But you and others like you write a lot about women and hyperbolize data, so I have to look for the size of the effects and edit your statements.

"You don't understand why the primary resources are of lower quality and not of higher quality. If you read Wikipedia's explanation of biological/medical research, they say, " Primary sources should NOT NORMALLY be used as a basis for biomedical content." - - - - - Okay, but the same empathy, my primary sources were in the field of empathy, they were not related to biology and medicine. They investigated the influence of motivation on the academic performance of the subjects. This is rather a sociological study that studied the influence of external factors on the performance of a number of tasks on empathy. At the same time, in a number of PRACTICAL TASKS, as opposed to self-reports.

"If the material can be supported by either primary or secondary sources, secondary sources should be used. Primary sources can be presented together with secondary sources" - - - - - Yes, that's exactly what I did( I'm talking about the second sentence). With the 2001 meta-analysis on the influence of motivation on empathy, I cited the original source of 2001, which (either did not enter into the meta-analysis, or supplemented some of its conclusions, I no longer remember). But I will not deny that I have contradicted this rule somewhere. But I have already talked about how I feel about the rules of wikipedia. I think I won't be rude.

"As for your "attempt" to try to avoid rudeness in your last statement, it's too late. You have insulted me several times in your statement, and this includes your use of the expression " stupid." I'm not going to complain. I said it would happen. This is one of the reasons why I can't talk to you about the editing errors that you make. Another reason is that you basically refuse to "submit" to the Wikipedia process." - - - - Yes, yes. As I said, there are a lot of vulnerable people on wikipedia) And there is no particular desire to talk about editing errors with you. You are not even trying to understand my position yourself, you just have problems with your tertiary sources. I'm just not used to trusting. I like to check. Therefore, for me, secondary sources are better than tertiary ones. And the primary ones are better than the tertiary ones, because the primary and secondary ones have research methods and other sweets that can be analyzed. And how the author wrote the book, it is worth only guessing here. But my words are like a sound with a frequency of 30,000 Hz for you, you just don't hear it. But I understood some of your statements. I will try to remove the controversial points more carefully, and next time I will still not be lazy and add some source from my side. Further dialogue is unprofitable, I think you understand this. And yet, perhaps our misunderstanding is caused by my poor knowledge of English on my part. So I'm really sorry. EvgFakka (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Whew, you type a lot. Not everyone will be willing to read that much. You need to be more succinct. I think I do too. I'm not going to reply to much of that, but I'll say some things.

You charge that I "have taken the liberty to claim that there is a biological reason for differences in empathy and that there are no other reasons." That isn't correct. I don't believe that societal conditioning plays no role. I just don't believe it's the main or only role. To say it's the main or only role would be like explaining away the big violence and crime gaps between men and women (men committing violence and other crime a lot more than women do, which some of the empathy discussion extends to) by saying it's mostly or only due to the way men and women are socialized. For many reasons, that just doesn't add up.

You said that "A smart person will publish several positions, as it should be done." And that I will "publish only one position." Yes, a smart person would publish several positions if the positions should be mentioned and are sourced as appropriate. Frankly, I'm fed up with you implying that I'm not smart. Filing this away in my mind and what you've said about the Wikipedia's administrators and others who have talked to you about your approach to editing, you think you're smarter than all of us. You think you're smarter than the experts, too. Okay, so why can't you, as a super duper smart person, take the Wikipedia process on completely (not just on your terms)? You threaten to create thousands of accounts just so you don't have to. Well, if you do, you'll be caught. To rvt your edits isn't about trying to hide another point of view. It's exactly, precisely, absolutely because you add resources of lower quality and try to use those to counter resources of higher quality and insert your own conclusions. Earlier, you said if I claim that you "have formulated a point of view that does not coincide with the source, then give examples, and do not just refer" to your publication. I gave examples at that noticeboard. "According to abundant evidence" is from this page. Also, unless you aren't telling us something, those aren't your publications. You're just citing them, okay?

My observations about your edits are not groundless. You have at times removed information that says women have an advantage or excel over men on things. When you removed "With respect to language, males predominantly use their left hemisphere but females use both their right and left hemispheres.", that's an example. You took it as an affront to men.

You said your "primary sources were in the field of empathy, they were not related to biology and medicine." Okay, empathy has much to do with brain science, and brain science stuff is biology. And when the brain science stuff is about things like fMRI, that's medical. Societal conditioning stuff isn't biological/medical, except for when it's about how biology interacts with it. But you've touched more than societal conditioning stuff. Most of your edits fall into the biological/medical area. Regardless, the rules I pointed to are right about primary resources. The problem when you present primary resources together with secondary resources is that you synthesize. Have you read any of the guiding pages you've been pointed to, like WP:SYNTHESIS? You also add primary resources when better resources are available. By the way, book resources can be secondary sources.[22]

Maybe Crossroads knows where to go from here. With all due respect, you've insulted me too much for me to continue talking to you. There's no talking with you. According to you, now I'm deaf and blind. I'm also a "vulnerable person." What is that supposed to mean? That I have a mental illness? Or just that you think I'm overly sensitive because I don't want to accept your personal attacks? You insult me and others just because we defer to the Wikipedia process. If you want the rules changed, go to the rule pages and propose changes. Go do it and stop breaking the rules and complaining and insulting all of us. GBFEE (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

"You accuse me of taking the liberty of claiming that there is a biological reason for differences in empathy and that there are no other reasons."This is not true. I do not believe that social conditioning does not play any role. I just don't believe that this is the main or only role. To say that this is the only or main role would be like explaining the large gap in violence and crime between men and women (men commit violence and other crimes much more often than women, which is covered by part of the empathy discussion), saying that this is all or only because of how men and women are socialized. For many reasons, it just doesn't add up." - - - - Yes, you think right, I believe you. Now go back to what you have defined and read what your empathy point sounds like. I am not saying that there are no biological differences between men and women. But I can't say for sure that the differences are innate. Your systematic review refers to Baron-Cohen, who once in 2000 studied the behavior of children(looking at faces or things). But this study has not been confirmed empirically, his research has been criticized many times. There are sooo many nuances that your review is systematic, which you value, did not bother to consider. And again, I'm not saying that the differences are purely social or biological in nature. I've already told you that we don't really know how the brain is responsible for differences in behavior. This is a very complex process. At the moment, there are a lot of hypotheses and assumptions. With the discovery of neuroplasticity at the end of the 20th century, it is now very difficult to judge differences in behavior by referring exclusively to the brain. What to talk about, even if the social aspects, training, can increase some areas of the brain and change their activity. For this reason, I don't like generalizations of such a complex system. This applies not only to Wikipedia, MANY scientists also sin against it. I understand that it is much easier to explain everything by innate features and the brain. But this will not advance us to the truth. About crimes, I doubt that biology is the main reason. But I do not deny its influence on these statistics.

"You said that "A smart person will publish several positions, as it should be done." And that I will "publish only one position." Yes, a smart person would publish several positions if the positions should be mentioned and are sourced as appropriate." ---- Yes, correct me. Why delete it? My links were correct. Meta-analysis and primary source. Even according to your rules, it does not contradict.

You also think that you are smarter than the experts. OK, so why can't you, as a super-duper smart person, completely take over the Wikipedia process (not just on your own terms)? ---- I am not very smart and I have never considered myself the smartest or even the smartest, I am quite self-critical and it has been so since childhood. Don't think you know me. You don't know anything about people. Here we need to delve into the term "smart". I'M WELL-READ. And I know a lot of hypotheses, their criticism, their support. I've read a lot of meta-analyses and reviews. And I'm just sure that there is not much that can be said specifically here. There are many points of view, quite strong, and we can not say which of them is the main or secondary. I can't say that the reason for sexual differences in empathy lies in biology. I can't say that this is the main reason. Maybe there are some differences in biology. But biology and genetics interact with the environment. It depends on this environment. This is such a huge and complex system that anyone who claims anything other than what I said is a fool. To assert at this stage of the development of science is simply ignorance. Therefore, it is necessary to publish this particular picture, namely an extensive picture, endowed with different shades, points of view. If you edited my edits in sympathy, then you should have brought them to mind. And you just took and deleted an important concept, and everyone is happy with themselves. Obviously, you follow the rules. Well, I congratulate you. I just made a mistake with the platform, I am striving for objectivity and truth. And you are ready to comply with the rules. This is my miscalculation.

"Earlier, you said that if I claim that you" formulated a point of view that does not coincide with the source, then give examples, and not just refer" to your publication. I gave examples on this bulletin board. "According to numerous proofs" - from this page. Besides, if you don't tell us something, it's not your publications. You're just quoting them, okay? " - - - - No, I specifically asked for a visual example. If you are not satisfied with my words "according to numerous sources" (and, to tell the truth, there may not have been exactly such words in the study, but there were many quotes there, and I added them myself). Delete these words, rephrase them, but why delete them? I have written to many people that English is not my native language. It just so happens that the English wiki is more objective(this is, of course, a miracle, but compared to others it is so), and that is why I use and edit the English wikipedia. Just rephrase the phrase if it is incorrect. I sometimes convey the essence, but I can add something from myself, this is normal. The essence has not changed, well, paraphrase if, in your opinion, I lied somewhere. I don't delete phrases and sources completely if I'm not satisfied with a couple of words. I just take and edit part of the statement, leaving the link and the main meaning. This is a sign of respect for the editor. And you deserve to be rude, because there is no respect at all in your actions. there is no understanding. No need to be offended. I'm hinting at a lot, but you see the banality. Stupidity is not stupidity. What is the difference? Although it is quite possible that everyone in your country or society is so sensitive to such things, I personally am not used to being offended by such superficial "insults". If I wanted to offend you, I would have done it much more elegantly.

"My observations about your edits are not groundless. You have sometimes deleted information that says that women have an advantage or are superior to men in something. When you removed "As for language, men mostly use the left hemisphere, but women use both the right and left hemispheres", this is an example. You took it as an insult to men."- - - You know how annoying I am people who supposedly know another person and claim something there, you haven't even seen me in person, but you are already an expert on my inner world. Interesting... The highest form of arrogance. I deleted it because I read that this is outdated information or an exaggeration. Yes, I didn't attach the link, unfortunately, I was too lazy. I admitted this mistake. And what is the insult for men? This is not entirely clear to me. I'm interested in looking at the original source, the size of the effect and other things. You don't have any of that in this statement, nor does your AUTHOR and EXPERT in the book. I can't even clearly judge what that means. I have given you many hypotheses. I can't take this as an insult, because it's not clear how it affects abilities. Especially when compared with the trivial size of the effects from the meta-analysis. And once again, what is the size of the effect, etc. I am more than sure that this is taken from one study of the late 20th century, early 21st. But I could be wrong.

"You said that your" primary sources were in the field of empathy, they were not related to biology and medicine."Okay, empathy has a lot to do with brain science, and brain science is biology." - - - - These are your fantasies. It turns out that everything concerns biology. Mathematics, reading, everything can be said that everything is rooted in the brain, and neurology. I've never heard more nonsense than this. Let's move on to the fact that when you criticize my thesis, we are talking about empathy. As soon as we started with this. I'm not going to make excuses now, I could have made a mistake somewhere, okay. I have published studies that tested the hypothesis about MOTIVATION. There was no FMRI, there was nothing related to the brain. This is a purely sociological study that saw anamalia in their research(when the methods changed, their results changed and changed dramatically) and decided to prove their point of view. There is no biology in this. If only to mention in the introduction, but the main message is about the influence of motivation, the environment, on the results of empathy. The authors did not refer to differences in the brain, they did not perform fMRI and other manipulations with biology.

"But you've touched more than societal conditioning stuff. Most of your edits fall into the biological/medical area." ----- Maybe I did, somewhere. I won't remember right now. But I've already said how I feel about the rules) What do you need. Or should I explain my position loudly again. Although what is there, it is impossible to explain anything to you. You're all talking about the same thing...

"Maybe the Crossroads knows where to go from here. With all due respect, you have offended me too much for me to continue talking to you. I can't talk to you. According to you, I am now deaf and blind. I am also a "vulnerable person"." - - - - - I said that you are deaf and blind to me(to my statements, my position). This does not mean that I consider you deaf and blind(in an absolute sense). I do not know if English is such a poor language, but my native language very clearly sees the line between when they say that you are deaf and blind TO ME (that is, to my words), and when they say that you are deaf and blind. I didn't call you deaf and blind. The second seems to be true.

"What is this supposed to mean? That I have a mental illness? Or do you just think that I'm too sensitive because I don't want to accept your personal attacks? You are insulting me and others just because we are subject to the Wikipedia process." - - - - Obviously, we are facing a cultural and language barrier. You don't understand at all, I don't wish you any harm, nothing else. Probably, in this case, we will not come to an understanding. Yes, I'm attacking you(if you can call it an attack, well, apparently, you are in pain, and you consider it an attack, although I don't see anything serious in it). But just like you wanted. You didn't write on my page, you didn't want to come to a CONSENSUS and EDIT WHAT I RULED JOINTLY and GRADUALLY. YOU immediately took and DELETED EVERYTHING that I published. I spent hours on the wording (English is not my native language, it is more difficult for me to do this). YOU just took it and DELETED it, without notification, without trying to come to the golden mean and cooperate with me, correct my mistakes in a way that suits both of us. YOU DESERVE TO BE TREATED LIKE THIS. And if you don't like it, blame yourself, not me. I HAVE ALREADY SAID THAT IF I WANTED TO HUMILIATE YOU, I WOULD DO IT VERY NICELY. My native language is much richer than English. It contains many terms that do not exist in the English language. And from the point of view of swearing, my native language is extremely eloquent and popular all over the world. If you are offended by those trifling phrases that are not considered particularly offensive in my homeland, then you are really gently cordial. I am a person with an extremely developed empathy, but when I am attacked(namely, you attack, deleting without warning and without CLEAR attempts TO CORRECT MY SHORTCOMINGS WITH TIME, TO COME TO A CONSENSUS), you get in response. I bury my sympathy deep in the ground, and contempt and anger burst out. And I have a lot of suspicions about this platform. But that's not the point. If my words offend you. Don't answer me, don't read me. This could have been done a long time ago. But you still come back here, and conduct a dialogue with me. And again, the questions are for you, not for me.

"If you want the rules changed, go to the rule pages and propose changes. Go do it and stop breaking the rules and complaining and insulting all of us." ---- Does this change anything at all? One person's opinion? Will it be taken into account? I can't believe it, to put it mildly. What's the point. What's the point of trying to edit something when one person with an inflated ego (I'm talking about you) will just take and delete EVERYTHING UNDER THE NET WITHOUT WARNING. WITHOUT TRYING TO TALK AT THE BEGINNING. What's the point of this. After that, all the desire to edit disappears. By the way, this is described in the criticism on Wikipedia.

If my words offend you. I apologize to you. I'll repeat it again. English is not my native language. I may be formulating a wrong idea and you take it for a fragmentation. I sympathize with our misunderstanding. But the way you have treated me since the first day(June 30), you have earned my negativity in your direction. And I protested, I tried to restore my works. You could talk to me calmly, come to a consensus, start correcting my mistakes together (yes, you will be surprised, but I am a human being, and I can make mistakes). But you didn't. And keep your links to the rules to yourself. As I said, I was disappointed in your platform and in the editors.

Good-bye. EvgFakka (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Gender differences in vision

I researched gender differences in vision today. Here's a review article I found. It's not very concise, but there might be some info in there worth adding to this article. There are also a bunch of non-medical articles floating around on this topic, which suggests to me that we should say something, even if it is "the idea of gender differences in vision is controversial and not well-supported". Let me know your thoughts. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

This is something else I'm looking at. Thanks for the resource. GBFEE (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Size, weight and body shape section

I'll be adding resources to each section, and sometimes this means replacing resources in a section. I added a resource about finger length to the section on size, weight and body shape, but I found when gathering resources, it's not an easy section to source.[23]. Some things in it might need to be removed or reworded. GBFEE (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Completing page and removing the original research tag

In November, I said, "I put together everything already for the whole page, but I want to go over it slower instead of with one fell swoop since it has a tag for original research. I also want to mind the synthesis guidance."[24]

I'm still holding off upgrading the page all at once, although it's difficult to hold off because there's a bit of eagerness and pride to just finish it already. I also want to give other pages my full focus. But I hear that "patience is a virtue" goes a long way. So I'm following that practice. I'll continue to work on each section one by one to make sure everything is the best it can be. Journal resources, and not only books, will also be used. GBFEE (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

My objective is to still take one section at a time. Please bear with me. My contributions don't show it at the moment, but I'm still working on this. GBFEE (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

July 2, 2022 ‎edits

As a result of Talk:Stroke volume#Stroke volumes and approximately 70 mL in a healthy 70-kg man,[25] CrafterNova made an edit that overrides the Wikidata description "Physical differences between human females and males" to say "Physical differences between sexes".[26] This because CrafterNova believes that there are three sexes and that intersex is the third sex. They have not explained how this is so. Meanwhile, this article, like all our sex differences articles, is about sex differences between males and females. CrafterNova also made a second edit that they say is a "wording fix".[27]. It changed "Direct being the direct result of differences prescribed by the Y-chromosome, and indirect being a characteristic influenced indirectly (e.g. hormonally) by the Y-chromosome." to "Direct distinctions being the result of differences, for example, arise due to the Y-chromosome, and indirect being a characteristic influenced indirectly (e.g. hormonally) by the Y-chromosome." Now, while there are two uses of "direct" in the long-standing version, can someone explain how the second iteration makes more sense in terms of grammar or what resources say? I did a rvt on CrafterNova's changes because "Physical differences between sexes" isn't as clear as "Physical differences between human females and males" and CrafterNova's change to the sentence is harder, not easier, to follow. Unremarkably (and unsurprisingly to me), Sideswipe9th jumped in, supporting CrafterNova's changes.[28] I did a rvt again.[29] And now we're here.

Comments? GBFEE (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Unremarkably (and unsurprisingly to me), Sideswipe9th jumped in, supporting CrafterNova's changes. That is certainly surprising to me as this is the first time we've ever directly interacted.

"Direct distinctions being the result of differences, for example, arise due to the Y-chromosome, and indirect being a characteristic influenced indirectly (e.g. hormonally) by the Y-chromosome." That is a more accurate statement. Leaving aside for now that precious few sources on human physiology refer to a split in distinctions as we are doing in this article, as demonstrated by your own revelation of the word "direct" only appearing in the text twice for which once was a citation. The Y chromosome is not the only cause of genetic differences between males and females. Per several sources; [30], [31], [32], [33] X chromosome inactivation is another cause of sex differentiation. The exact cause of X chromosome inactivation is unclear at present, however it is nonetheless a cause of sexual dimorphism.

Going back now to the "direct" and "indirect" terminology, there is two issues with the sentence. As far as I can tell from a quick search, plus my own background knowledge, most sources do not distinguish between chromosomal and endocrinological in this manner. Secondly, per GBFEE's search of the article text it is entirely unsupported and unexplained in the body of the article. Per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY we either need to address this in the body demonstrated by a breadth of sources, or we need rethink and rephrase that section of the lead entirely. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Forgive me. It's unremarkable and unsurprising to me[34][35] because an IP named you as an alternate account of another editor. You might have missed the accusation on your talk page? The accusations caused a few chain reactions. Because of this, I'm aware of you, your interactions with Crossroads, and that you appear at articles he edits when you've never edited them before. Now, before you cite the assume good faith policy, rest assured that I'm not accusing you of anything. No way. I'm just describing why your appearance here is unremarkable and unsurprising to me.

For the second iteration of the sentence change by CrafterNova, I asked how it makes more sense in terms of grammar or what resources say. The wording is poor. Let's say we remove "for example". You then have "Direct distinctions being the result of differences arise due to the Y-chromosome, and indirect being a characteristic influenced indirectly (e.g. hormonally) by the Y-chromosome." What? It needs a better delivery and resources that directly support it.

You didn't address the Wikidata change by adding that short description. GBFEE (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, I did indeed miss that notification. Without commenting on the wider situation, I would say in general if you or any editor feels as though someone is sock-puppeting, then filing a request at WP:SPI is the obvious solution. Stating it as you have done, in both the edit summary and here, is unnecessarily aggressive and argumentative. Either resolve the issue the proper way, via a SPI, or don't mention it at all on wiki.

With regards to the wording you reverted to, it has two main issues as far as I can see. One is that it's entirely unsupported by the rest of the text in the article. There is no text in the body that elaborates on why sex differences are categorised as direct and indirect, nor how those categories are determined. That's a pretty straightforward WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY issue. Secondly it is making a definitive claim; that the Y chromosome is the only "direct" cause for sex differences. Per the sources I've provided above, X chromosome inactivation is another genetic cause for sex differences in human physiology. There may be others in the literature on this topic as well, as it is well known that genetic mutations in SRY cause several conditions that impact on sexual expression.

Looking at the Wikidata entry for this page, adding the {{short description}} template has not altered the Wikidata entry at all. The last edit to the Q page was in November 2021. Furthermore the documentation for the template states Short descriptions do not necessarily serve the same function as the Wikidata description for an item and they do not have to be the same, but some overlap is expected in many cases. As such, I don't see an issue with it differing slightly between the two. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

You seem too observant[36][37] to have missed that "notification", or to not be aware of accusations made against both of us.

I don't see where I accused you of sock-puppeting. I said "There you are.",[38] but that's because I've seen you appear at articles Crossroads edits when you've never edited them before, particularly if the matter concerns sex/gender, and he's on record expressing feeling this way.[39]. Not just about you, but that's beside the point. Bringing it up here doesn't help this discussion. So I understand you on that. Crossroads edits this article, and he probably wouldn't want to talk about that stuff here. He might offer opinions on the article stuff, though.

For the sentence CrafterNova edited, how do you suggest we word it? Or do you suggest we remove it altogether?

For the Wikidata description, my concern isn't with what's on Wikidata. It's with the less clear description. You want it because you also think of intersex people as a third sex? Or because you want more intersex representation in the article? GBFEE (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of the possible issues Sideswipe9th mentions about X chromosome inactivation and the like, it's still the case that the edit that GBFEE reverted had worse grammar. Also, so far, no new sources have been presented, and no evidence that the lead does not represent the body has been presented, so the lead edit was not justified at the present time. A change in meaning requires new sources. As for the short description, I think this article may qualify for WP:SDNONE, though I see no reason to change it from the Wikidata version. Per the MEDRS, "between sexes" and "between males and females" mean the same thing. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see where I accused you of sock-puppeting. You did that when you said It's unremarkable and unsurprising to me[34][35] because an IP named you as an alternate account of another editor. as it implies you support or agree with the commentary by that IP editor. If you do not agree with that IP, then I do not know why you chose to bring it up, either in the extended conversation here nor in the edit summary.

your interactions with Crossroads, and that you appear at articles he edits when you've never edited them before That sort of thing happens when you're slowly extending the sphere of articles in which you are editing, and due to the controversial subject matter there are only a handful of active contributors.

Back to the actual topic of this article.

With regards to the sentence "direct" vs "indirect" sentence, there is two solutions. Either we need to add supporting text and sources into the body of the article, or we remove it. I'm tending towards deletion as I cannot find suitable sources to support it, however I don't want to commit to that action right now in lieu of you or any other editors commenting on it.

As for the short description, I do not think it is less clear. It's more concise, while conveying the same information, without being needlessly over restrictive. I could be convinced to swap the word "Physical" for "Physiological" however. I'm not sure what your obsession is with intersex nor how it relates to my contributions to this article. I just think that it is an improvement. That is all. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)