Talk:Gender

Citation Suggested

The rise of criticism against the WID approach led to the emergence of a new theory, that of Women and Development (WAD). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhum.group2 (talk • contribs) 17 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Citation suggested

In contemporary times, most literature and institutions that are concerned with women's role in development incorporate a GAD perspective, with the United Nations taking the lead of mainstreaming the GAD approach through its system and development policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhum.group2 (talk • contribs) 17 May 2019 (UTC)

References

The gender taxonomy section

That Gender Taxonomy section has major issues.

First, it uses only uses two sources.

Second, uses those sources for so called “gender taxonomy” is original research because none of the sources implied or said there is or was a taxonomy.

Third, do any of the sources say that all those elements equate to a taxonomy. Or did someone just combine unrelated sources together to create that.

I may just delete that whole section or fix it up.CycoMa (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe this article may need some looking over

This article in particular has been known for some original research. It has also been guilty of distorting information especially regarding the biological view of the topic.

Like I have an issue with the biological views section. Like hasn’t it already been established that gender is sociological thing while sex is a biological thing.

I’m gonna wait for other editors reply to this and help me find ways to fix this article.CycoMa (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: If you were sincere about wanting input from other editors to help to "fix" this article, it would have been courteous to wait more 20 minutes before making edits yourself, including the removal of major categories and sourced content. Funcrunch (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Funcrunch yeah regarding me removing the biology category. The article well establishes that sex and gender are two distinct things.

regarding that other mention of yours, I merely said more sources for that section. When I removed Joan that section had only two sources, which isn’t really ideal for a section. Until you added three more.

Also what I said about Joan Roughgarden, is that the ideas in that book was criticized by 40 scientists. I mean you have it on her article.

It’s mentioned in this source. Also I didn’t say I have an issue with Wikipedia using Joan as a source in general. It’s just Wikipedia shouldn’t use sources that were heavily criticized by scholars.CycoMa (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course I read what you said about the criticism from the scientists; I specifically addressed that in my edit summary. My point remains; if you are serious about wanting to collaborate, then actually do so, rather than impatiently editing almost immediately after requesting assistance. Gender is a level three vital article on Wikipedia, and, like many of the other gender and sex related articles you've been editing, is highly ranked in Google and other web searches. It's vitally important that editors work thoughtfully and carefully on any non-trivial edits to these articles. Funcrunch (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, it would be helpful if you paused and reflected more before adding content to talk pages as well as articles, so you don't end up going back and making so many edits like these. Funcrunch (talk) 23:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand it is important, but I’m concerned about Wikipedia using problematic sources. Like that source being criticized isn’t my opinion or me POV pushing. It would be more ideal to use a different source by Joan that makes a similar claim.

Also sorry if I wasn’t clear but what I was mainly asking help on was regarding the biological section, because I’m not entirely sure many things in that section belong here.

They would seem more suitable on the article of sex because many reliable sources on this topic and articles on this site say that sex is biological while gender is sociological. It just seems like this article in particular is mixing up two separate subjects or is confused on the matter.CycoMa (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe I’m confused on the subject of sex being biological and gender being sociological. But in all honesty I don’t know much about the sociological side of this topic so I can’t say much on that.CycoMa (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Joan Roughgarden's rejection of sexual selection and her definition of gender and extension thereof to non-human animals are WP:FRINGE and hence WP:UNDUE. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Seriously stop trying to put Joan Roughgarden’s book in here as a source. Wikipedia isn’t some place to promote fringe ideas. If you revert it again, me and Crossroads will have to get Fringe Theories notice board on this.CycoMa (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

She is literally a professor of evolutionary biology from Stanford and the book in question has been reviewed warmly by mainstream and academic sources, including NYT, APA and Nature. Some sources disagree with her but she is not fringe. Rab V (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Rab V she is a minority on the subject of biology. No mainstream biologist rejects sexual selection.

Also did you read the part on her article where it says 40 biologists criticized the ideas presented in her book.

Fringe sources don’t belong here on Wikipedia.CycoMa (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Also this is one issue I have with this article in general. It contains possible fringe ideas. Like days ago I removed entire subject section because it was full of original research because some editors wanted to claim there is a gender taxonomy.CycoMa (talk) 05:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

She is an eminent professor in her field who shook things up in her field. That she garners lots of attention, some of it critical, is not shocking. Reliable sources take her seriously as an expert so it having her ideas included and attributed to her is due. Rab V (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Rab V nobody is arguing whether or not she’s an biologist. No one is arguing how serious some sources take her.

What I am saying is that particular and the ideas presented in it are fringe. It’s that simple.

I kindly ask you to bring something new to table on the matter. If you repeat that again don’t be offended if I don’t respond to you.CycoMa (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Evolution’s Rainbow is a book full of fringe ideas, it was criticized by mainstream biologists. There is no argument against that.CycoMa (talk) 05:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

At best your argument could support that Roughgarden's book is an alternative theoretical formulation, which per WP:FRINGE/ALT would not require complete removal from the article. Also per WP:FRINGE "For a fringe view to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, independent reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious and substantial matter." Roughgarden definitely meets that criteria. I still do not think you have shown any source that proves she is fringe, just referenced wikipedia articles, but even if she were fringe she meets the criteria in FRINGE for inclusion. Rab V (talk) 05:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Rab V [this source] source literally says 40 scientists criticized the ideas presented in her book.

So I don’t understand why you reverted me removing it.CycoMa (talk) 05:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Have you read WP:FRINGE/ALT? Are you arguing Evolutions Rainbow is something other than an alternative theoretical formulation? FRINGE doesn't say to remove any idea that isn't completely mainstream. Just that they need to be notable as defined by inclusion in reliable sources in a substantial way, which they have. Rab V (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh I found a free version of interested.CycoMa (talk) 06:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything there about the 40 scientists, maybe quote it? But also that would support that "independent reliable sources must discuss the relationship" between Joan's idea and the broader topic which per FRINGE would mean it can be discussed in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rab V (talk • contribs) 06:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The free version doesn't seem to be the same article that mentions the 40 scientists' criticism. Could someone provide a quote from that article? Or, perhaps, clarify if the criticism discusses Roughgarden's claims about gender in non-human animals? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Firefanglefeathers I don’t understand someone used as a source claiming 40 scientists criticized her book.CycoMa (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Rab V did you forget to sign your comment?CycoMa (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

But any way I’m just gonna wait this out and see what other editors think on the matter.CycoMa (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I've alerted the LGBT studies and Gender studies WikiProjects to this discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay guys this discussion is over, I may have been mistaken.

I should probably go over to the [Joan Roughgarden] article and discuss this. Didn’t mean to waste people’s time.CycoMa (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually wait I think I found an archive version of it right here, her Wikipedia page says 40 scientists criticized the ideas in her book.CycoMa (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

That's helpful, but to be clear it's not the same as the source linked above (a Gender & Society review by Simpson). This source does support 40 scientists critiquing Roughgarden's paper but does not support Roughgarden's view on gender in non-human animals being fringe. All the criticism noted in this source is focused on Roughgarden's views on sexual selection. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

But still I’m concerned about using Joan Roughgarden or her book because it is indeed obvious she has her critics. It’s hard to tell how many people criticized her views that’s the one thing I’m having a hard time finding.

As a matter some of the scholars cited in this article may need some looking over.CycoMa (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Roughgarden's views are fringe

Above, Rab V points to WP:FRINGE/ALT and states, "even if she were fringe she meets the criteria in FRINGE for inclusion." Let's see what WP:FRINGE actually says: A fringe theory is an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. And: a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is....If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner. The material reverted back in by Funcrunch and Rab V fails this test.

Joan Roughgarden disputes Darwin’s theory of sexual selection and its implications regarding gender and sexuality. As an alternative, Roughgarden presents her theory of social selection, which focuses on how cooperative and transactional reproduction benefits the social infrastructure of a species. This is her theory which is presented in her book Evolution's Rainbow, and in an article published in Science. The book and two non-peer-reviewed articles based on it (which latter two are disfavored per WP:SOURCETYPES) are the sources for this material in the Wikipedia article. We can see from this quote that her claims about gender in animals are inextricable from her rejection of sexual selection. Roughgarden herself admits that her ideas are not accepted by other biologists (while of course framing it in terms of 'I'm right'). She states Most biologists labor in the hope that Darwin’s sexual selection theory can somehow be extended to deal with [etc.]...Most biologists remain defensive of sexual selection theory. [1]

This book review in a peer-reviewed journal by an academic who is in departments of both biology and gender studies lays it out quite well: her review of the inadequacy of popular stereotypes leads Roughgarden to conclude that Darwin was wrong about sexual selection, and on this point she fails utterly to convince me....it’s Darwin’s ideas on sexual selection that are on trial in Roughgarden’s book, not his attitudes toward women, and his ideas have stood the test of time....The fourth and fifth assertions are the ones I found most intriguing, namely that animals have gender, and that while animals come in only two sexes, based on the size of their gametes, they often come in more than two genders. Do animals have gender?...When asked, my colleagues in the Department of Gender Studies agreed that the term gender could be properly applied only to humans, because it involves one’s self-concept as man or woman. Sex is a biological concept; gender is a human social and cultural concept. But Roughgarden defines it this way: “Gender is the appearance, behavior, and life history of a sexed body”. (Emphasis added.) If anyone wants to claim that there has been any significant acceptance and endorsement of these ideas in the peer-reviewed literature of gender studies or biology, including Roughgarden's peculiar definition of gender, the burden of proof is on them.

Really, given that we are speaking of non-human animals, the relevant field is biology far more than gender studies. And here, the rejection of these ideas is even clearer. This article in The Scientist, a professional magazine for biologists, states, Forty biologists have contributed a total of ten letters to Science this week, all critiquing a review paper published in February suggesting that reproductive behavior is explained better by cooperative game theory than by the theory of sexual selection first proposed by Darwin. "The review is a poor piece of scholarship, which is consequently misleading, and from that point of view should not have been published," Kate Lessells, based at the Netherlands Institute of Ecology and lead author on one of the letters, told The Scientist. In the review, Joan Roughgarden of Stanford University in California and two co-authors claim that sexual selection theory, which emphasizes the often-different interests of males and females, is fatally flawed....In response, the journal received a swell of letters from biologists, critiquing the arguments Roughgarden and her colleagues lay forth...."Sexual selection theory is not deeply flawed, and happily includes all of the points Roughgarden et al try and make," letter-writer David Shuker, at the University of Edinburgh, UK, told The Scientist. Moreover, the review does not explain compelling data that support sexual selection theory, some letter-writers note...."Many people felt that this was completely shoddy science and poor scholarship, all motivated by a personal agenda," said Queens University in Canada's Troy Day, lead author of another letter. (Roughgarden is known for her controversial stance on a range of issues, notably those involving gender.) Pizzari added that each of the 17 examples highlighted by Roughgarden in an electronic supplement to their review contains misunderstandings, misrepresentations, or both....Science's editor-in-chief, Donald Kennedy, said in a statement to The Scientist that a certain amount of dissent was expected with this kind of paper. "We knew this was a prospectively controversial Review article," he said. "It's not surprising that we're publishing a number of letters." (Emphasis added.) Here is a link to the series of letters. It is not necessary to quote this in addition to The Scientist, but it backs up what is said there and is worth reading.

It is evident from these sources that Roughgarden's new theory and definition regarding sexuality and gender in animals departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views of biology and even of gender studies, as defined by WP:FRINGE. I shouldn't have to now clutter up this talk page which links to some of the many thousands of sources which define gender as human-only and which explain animal behavior in accord with sexual selection and without any reference to genders as Roughgarden defines them. The burden of proof is on the other side, rather. Where are the secondary, independent, peer-reviewed sources that show that Roughgarden's definition of gender and application thereof to non-human animals has enough endorsement so as not to be WP:UNDUE? Roughgarden continuing to defend her ideas, the occasional book review being charitable and finding some things to compliment or say are interesting, or discussion in non-peer-reviewed sources do not count in this regard.

I will be notifying the Biology WikiProject and the Fringe Theory Noticeboard. Funcrunch already alerted the LGBT Studies and Gender Studies WikiProjects. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

One important clarifying point: not all views Roughgarden holds are fringe, of course. The existence of homosexual behavior in animals, or that animal behavior between the sexes doesn't always match popular stereotypes, aren't fringe. Neither are those ideas unique to her, however. It is the rejection of sexual selection and redefinition of gender that are fringe. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, thanks for the sources and summaries. I don't have acomment on whether Roughgarden's views on sexual selection are fringe or merely alternative. I'll assume for the purposes of this article that those views are fringe.

The text in this article cited and attributed to Roughgarden currently says, "Joan Roughgarden argues that some non-human animal species also have more than two genders, in that there might be multiple templates for behavior available to individual organisms with a given biological sex." This means your assertion that her views on gender are inextricable from her views on sexual selection is an important one. I don't find the quote provided to show that to be true. If others have more persuasive reasons to inextricably link the two ideas, I would agree to exclude the content.

Is her gender view fringe on its own merits? I'll have more to add later on this, but I don't find the book review to push strongly in that direction. The relevant part of the article from The Scientist is far too non-specific to be helpful here.

Even if it isn't fringe, Crossroads is right that we need positive reception and review of Roughgarden's ideas in order to include them here. I am not sure what's currently cited is sufficient and have more review to do. I look forward to the fresh eyes of uninvolved editors and appreciate Crossroads and Funcrunch for reaching out. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I’ll add onto this as well, I have read some bits in Joan’s book. Some things she says do align up with many other reliable sources on biology on many topics

So she’s technically not a fringe scientist, it’s just her view on sexual selection and gender are fringe .CycoMa (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• do not include animal gender I came from the alert at WP:LGBT. Here is the edit discussed - special:diff/1028466962/1028467227. Right now even a mention of animal gender is WP:UNDUE because this topic does not seem to be part of any mainstream gender discourse. For anyone who advocates for inclusion of this, start an article on animal gender to make it easier for people to confirm if this article should link to it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

So who shall we remove it? Who’s in favor of removing animal gender.CycoMa (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Remove animal gender* for all reasons listed above and I don't even feel it fits in the section Some2Guy (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I was notified about this on the Fringe noticeboard. I have not read Roughgarden's book, but I would like to point out that we rarely focus on the views of a single scientist in an article, except for historical figures like Newton or Darwin or Mendel. Where an individual was the first to make a discovery (Higgs, Curie, etc) they deserve mention, but this is often specifically because those discoveries were then confirmed and reconfirmed by the work of many other researchers. Without getting into the details of Roughgarden's claims, it makes very little sense to rely on a single researcher for this. When that researcher's views are clearly not shared by others in the field, it simply becomes untenable.

  And yes, this does mean that if Wikipedia had been around when Margulies first made her claims about endosymbiosis, we would not have included those either, until the discoveries of the origin of mitochondria were confirmed. And in fact Margulies is an illuminating example for why we don't follow the "intrepid investigator" trope: while her views on endosymbiosis were absolutely correct with regards to the origin of mitochondria, there is still no evidence to support (and incontrovertible evidence to oppose) her claims of symbiotic origin of other organelles.

  If Roughgarden is the only source we have for a given set of claims, we should probably remove them until others in the field have followed up with more research to confirm them. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the replies above. In case it becomes necessary in the future to refer back to this discussion, I will add here additional evidence on the subject from an academic source from another article: Roughgarden's papers have received few citations in the scientific literature, and peers have generally not been kind....So far, Roughgarden's model has had few takers....The paradigm didn't shift; the gambit failed. [2] Crossroads ^-talk- 04:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  I would have used that source to support the gendered animal view. Allen writes, "Assigning sex roles is complicated by the fact that, in some species, a single sex may have multiple, clearly delineated gender roles." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  How odd. The full sentence reads, Assigning sex roles is complicated by the fact that, in some species, a single sex may have multiple, clearly delineated gender roles. Gender roles and genders aren't the same thing, though, and given the use of "sex roles" here and the wider context, it's about variation that everyone agrees exists, and not supporting Roughgarden's specific definition. The author appears to be a book author, but not a biologist as such. It would be a stretch to read into this that these are actually widely considered separate genders within those species - we would expect to see that in the papers explaining those phenomena in detail, not just this brief discussion focused on Roughgarden. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  I think we quoted the same text! We could get into the weeds about whether there can be gender roles without genders, but the spirit of your point is valid: this source is not enough to justify inclusion of the old Roughgarden content. I agree, but would also add that it's not a useful source for discounting her views on animal gender. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry about the requoting, maybe I thought that you had only quoted the part of the sentence that said "gender role" or something. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

  Firefangledfeathers just to throw this out but the article on gender role says this.

  A gender role, also known as a sex role.

  So it appears sex role and gender role are technically the same thing, also the source didn’t say animals can have gender.

  If we want to prove that animals have gender, the source should directly say animals have gender.CycoMa (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  I solemnly swear not to insert the animal gender view into the article without persuasive sourcing, clear expert attribution, and prior discussion. I hope that helps! I am not convinced it's worth mentioning at all, but I'm grateful to this discussion for sending me down an interesting research path. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Also this article says that gender is.

Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, femininity and masculinity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex, sex-based social structures (i.e., gender roles), or gender identity.[1][2][3]

The article also says this.

According to biologist Michael J. Ryan, gender identity is a concept exclusively applied to humans.[102].

I haven’t read everything but I assume when they say animals don’t have gender they mean they don’t have gender identity or don’t have treat sex the same we humans treat sex.(Keep in mind I mostly research on the biological side of sex, so I don’t know much about the sociological or the gender studies view on gender.)

CycoMa (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Also I don’t know much about the gender identity thing either, so I can’t say much on that either.CycoMa (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

On the biological factors and views

I think some things in the Biological factors and views needs to be moved over to sex. Because didn’t this article and other Wikipedia articles on this site establish that gender is a sociological thing while sex is a biological thing? If that’s the case then the information in there doesn’t belong here and should be moved to other places. I’m gonna wait and see what other people say on the matter.CycoMa (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I can't comment more specifically without knowing which "some things" you are referring to. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Basically the entire section because I believe editors who written that section were confused on the matter by confusing sex with gender.CycoMa (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I am really glad you brought this up. There are parts I think we should remove, although I oppose removing the entire section. As is clear from the title and contents, the first part of the section discusses biologists' views on gender and biological factors that affect gender, and I think it should stay. I would support removal of most or all of Sexual dimorphism; the first part gives a too-basic overview of DNA, sexual reproduction, and genetics and that's followed up by the subsection Human brain which is similarly off-topic and sex-focused. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Sex and gender are still connected, even though they are distinct concepts. A lot of things subsumed by 'gender' are still biologically influenced. So there should definitely be a section on biological influences. And anything from this article wouldn't belong at sex since this one is human-centered and that one is not. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads I’m not entirely sure there is a consensus on what gender is in the sociological context.

Didn’t the article mention that what gender varies from context?CycoMa (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. Dealing with the controversy above this one is enough of a time suck; this isn't the time for more. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah your right, let’s just put this discussion on hold until the other earlier one is fixed.CycoMa (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Who want’s to continue this discussion?CycoMa (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Also most of the sources in the biological section are medical sources.CycoMa (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I am interested in continuing this discussion. In particular, I am about to remove Sexual dimorphism and Human brain for the reasons listed above. I'd add: neither subsection even mentions the word gender. I am not opposed to sections existing with those titles but the current versions seem entirely out of scope. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I saved the human brain section because I do believe it can be useful somewhere else.CycoMa (talk) 05:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Good call. For future readers who want to access the removed content, here's a diff of my edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with this removal. Mathglot (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Text within a Biology textbook

I am holding a Biology textbook by Robert A Wallace (The World of Life) that states verbatim: "If a Y-bearing sperm reaches the egg first and fertilizes it, the offspring will be XY, and thus male. If an X-bearing sperm fertilizes the egg, the offspring will be XX, a female. This is how gender is determined in many animals including mammals." Stating that genetics does not determine a mammal's gender is a farce. -Rob^talk 07:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is mostly about the sociology of gender. You can discuss this at sex if you are interested.CycoMa (talk) 07:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Rob, presumably you are looking at page 192 of the 1992 Harper Collins edition. This book first came out in 1975 when in some contexts, the words sex and gender were used interchangeably, but that was almost half a century ago. Even 1992 is three decades away; modern biology textbooks would rarely conflate the terms in this way. In any case, as CycoMa said, that's not what *this* article is about. If you want to know more about the union of male and female gametes in sexual reproduction, that's already well-covered at the sexual reproduction article, and at sex. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. I assure you, nothing has changed, Biologically speaking, in the last 50 or so years. "Typically in mammals, the gender of an organism is determined by the sex chromosomes." https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Sex-Chromosome The only thing that has changed is the amount of misinformed people perpetuating that gender is somehow not a part of Biology. -Rob^talk 05:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

That bit is casually written, speaking of what is "interesting", and is probably for educational purposes. Because the English language word (sex) for biological sex as a trait is the same as a word for sexual intercourse, people will commonly use "gender" interchangeably with it in casual contexts and because the two align in the vast majority of people. However, we don't do that here. Per WP:Due weight, it is sex that is being spoken of there. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I’ll just say this, regarding the issue of the distriction between sex and gender is mainly a sociological thing. There are still some biology text books that would use the two interchangeable without knowing they aren’t the same thing.

But still this article is mainly a sociology article, so this article is primarily discussing the sociological view on the topic.CycoMa (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that gender should be defined as a set of traits associated with a particular sex, whether it be physical psychological, etc.

I would also go on to state that all chromosomes carry genes that cause an organism to develop traits. An organism will have lots of autosomal chromosomes that do not determine sex, but still carry genes... and along with those genes come traits. There are also chromosomes that carry genes that determine sex. These "sex chromosomes" also carry genes that cause traits just like autosomes. The sex chromosomes literally define the traits associated with a particular organism's sex - ie: its gender. as well as determine the sex itself.

There is far too much psychological "gender identity" bleeding into the "gender" article, and not enough genetics talk, imho. -Rob^talk 05:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)