Talk:Secondary sex characteristic

Untitled

I have come across two competing definitions of primary/secondary sexual traits. One is that which is mentioned. The other one says that primary sexual traits are those initially established during development (gonads), and that secondary sexual characteristics are those that are due to hormones (etc.) produced by the primary sexual organs. This definition would lump external genitalia in with secondary characteristics. I asked a geneticist which one was correct and he claimed that the latter definition was the correct one. Does anybody know more about this?

---

This article describes secondary sex characteristics in terms of what is unique to a given sex and which provides competitive advantage for sexual selection. But I had been under the impression that pubic hair in humans was considered a secondary sex characteristic (and adult humans of both sexes have it). Is this not true?

Well, it's at odds with the definition, anyway.I believe it's a sex characteristic, though, since it protects the organs(?), sends out pheromones etc.

---

I would like to merge this to adolescence article since the article discusses change in body among them. I know the article can develop to contain more detailed medical stuff, but there is no gurantee that such will happen. We can split it off later again, if needed -- Taku 23:20 23 May 2003 (UTC)

I disagree. The link from chicken sexer makes more sense this way, and I'd imagine other articles would too. Kent Wang 07:02, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Listing "functional mammary glands" as secondary sex characteristic seames to be at odds with the statement "Secondary sex characteristics can give individuals an advantage over rivals in one of two ways. Either they can be used to defeat rivals in combat, or they can be used to attract members of the other sex."? Zik-Zak 13:28, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it fits and it's understandable because you know females won't fight with their breasts, but the breasts are attractive for the males. 2800:810:453:8324:A85F:D541:F663:E840 (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Pictures

Those pictures of the humans have some weird connotations. I'm reminded of the racist history of anthropology and science. Mx. Terra 16:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Male/Female vs Man/Woman

I am changing the headings Man/Woman to Male/Female. Secondary sex characteristics have more to do with biological sex (male/female) than they have to do with gender roles (man/woman). Charm 01:00, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Bad Wikitax

This article demensrates two very bad habits: placing a heading in a sentence, and not linking jargon.

By "placing a heading in a sentence", I mean taking the beginning of a sentence and turning it into a heading, such as: == At MIT ==, the usage of foobar is prevelent. When rendered, the comma begins the first line and hurts readability.

Anybody who doesn't know names of genes or detailed human anatomy will understand what I mean "not linking jargon." ("What is a germ cell? Aren't germs bad?") --Astronouth7303 04:31, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleted irrelevant content

I deleted almost all of the article because it was irrelevant to secondary sex characteristics, which develop at puberty (the article had tons of fetus stuff) and do not have a direct reproductive function (the article had gonads in it). It was kind of a "differentiation of the sexes" kind of article before, which is not what secondary sex characteristics is about. Differentiation starts in the womb, not puberty and it includes the genitals. Perhaps the information could be added to another article or a separate article could be started. Kjkolb 13:41, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

The article is sexual differentiation, whence much of the content here was copied. Duplicating the articles like this is pointless; those interested in and informed about the subject should decide what belongs in sexual differentiation and what belongs in secondary sex characteristic, then split the text accordingly. —Charles P. (Mirv) 14:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's been reverted. How could fetuses exhibit secondary sex characteristics? Most of the article is about fetuses. There's stuff about gender identity in there, somehow (It's fine but not relevant to this particular article. Changing one's secondary sexual characteristics to those of another gender, like breast implants and hair removal, might be).

There's a section called "gonadal differentiation" but gonads are a primary sexual characteristic. Another is called "Chromosomal sex differences" but that does not happen at puberty. It is fixed from birth.

Also, one of the external links is "Development of the Female Sexual & Reproductive Organs." The definition excludes the genitals, so I don't see how it's relevant. The "Frank H. Netter, M.D." page is broken. The only other link is about sexual differentiation, not secondary sexual characteristics. Kjkolb 14:36, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I trimmed it again in light of the above comments and restored the list of characteristics from this version. I hope those who believe that it's necessary to rehash most of the sexual differentiation article here will explain their reasoning. —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excellent work. The article is much better now. Kjkolb 04:43, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Suggest remove reference to "male peacock." There is no such thing as a female peacock. Fwild3 (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Deleted link

Thanks. Good catch. They seem to be playing with session ids in a way that is incompatible with external linking, so I think I'll leave the link out. Oh well.

Human-centricity

Secondary sex characteristics include the tusks of sea lions, the plumage of many male birds, the chemical indicators of many insects, etc. And yet this article is entirely focused on human beings. I understand why this bias creeps in, after all, every single Wikipedia editor is a human, but this page should either move to Human secondary sex characteristic(s) (to be replaced by a more species-neutral article under this name) or it should include treatment of the general medical term. I'd be bold, but my current dispute on Sexual characteristics would likely follow me here if I did. Can someone with some bio background or some good, authoritative references update the page? Thanks -Harmil 22:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, there should be a lot more material on non-human species here. -- Beland 06:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

In the beginning, after the definition the article states:

"Some have argued that in general they evolved to give an individual an advantage over its rivals in courtship." While this is thought to be the case in some sex selected traits like the peacock's tail, in the context of humans, is it not more commonly held that many of these traits serve both for distance identification of gender (humans having developed on open savannas) and as visual signals to direct reproductive drive (having sacrificed scent ability for improved sight and frontal lobe traits and having stood up making genital displays of receptiveness less prominent).

Also, since some human secondary sexual characteristics were complicated by rapid changes in our species, like female hip development needing to achieve a compromise between an expanding head size and a new pelvic alignment for walking, and the altering of reproductive and social strategies, I wonder if human secondary sex characteristics should be given its own article. Certainly the fact that human secondary sex traits have cultural, religious and political relevance could be expanded on in a separate article. Apple Rancher 05:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"Functional Mammary Glands"?

I understand that they're most commonly found in females, but it could be noted that male lactation is not uncommon. Should this be noted here? -Cyril 21:29, 13 March 2006 (Central Time)

Brain differences

I have heard that females have more white matter (as opposed to gray matter) in their brains. Isn't this considered a secondary sex characteristic? -Psyadam 21:18, 7 December 2006 (Pacific Time)

Dumb question.

Are the differing life expectancies of human males and females representative of secondary sex characteristics? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe no, because it's not physical. ― LADY GALAXY ★彡 ^Refill/lol 04:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I meant it's not physical like an arm or something.... it's just like you die and that's it, how is that a characteristic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Why sigh, cutie pie? (talk • contribs) 04:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

pictures

Oh my god, would someone please replace those picures with something more eye-pleasing? Jernejl 21:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

you can find porn else where —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.22.95 (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

RE pictures

The new pictures are horrible. The old ones were better as they were big enough and so were not fuzzy and filled up the page

I'm happy to see that the pictures are back in the page. They are informative and should stay. Mikael Häggström 18:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In the picture of the male the pubic hair is labelled. According to Wikipedia, women apparently don't have pubic hair. Since these pictures are trying to depict typical male and female secondary sex characteristics why not show a typical woman with pubic hair. Donama 11:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. These pictures are an embarassment to wikipedia. Get rid of them. Whoever posted them may have some (probably English) taste for shaved female genitalia but could he please not let his tastes ruin a supposedly scientific article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Retroguy90 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. While shaving may be fashionable now, pubic hair is a secondary sex characteristic of both men and women. The photos should reflect this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.110.140.142 (talk) 03:32, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. Pete.Hurd 05:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Also it seems misleading to label the female head hair, implying that the longer hair is a sex characteristic, when obviously that is a gender role issue, not a biological difference. Mdwh 16:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It's ironic that an earlier note chastised someone for wanting "porn" - because that is exactly what the current pictures depict. Considering these examples are of the human species, perhaps pics can be found that show a man & woman completely natural. They also should not have tattoos either. So I agree that at least a new women's photo needs to be found. SteveCoppock (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we at least find a male and female example of the same race? 124.184.173.137 (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is that relevant? 76.233.78.160 (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Respectfuly - The pictures - please change them to computer rendered images (and not from someone's 3D body scan either..). For some reason these new pictures feel like an exhibitionist's public exhibition - if so its' kinda gross IMHO.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.37.229.213 (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

the gender neutrality of grammar and those pics

Secondary sex characteristics manifest in all humans post-puberty. Because this is not an article strictly on sexual dimorphism or "difference" (which is covered elsewhere), but by its title suggests it will discuss sex characteristics that are considered "secondary" to reproduction but that develop after puberty, some of the article seems misleading, off-topic, and, frankly, sex/gender-biased, particularly in its use of structure and grammar. I think that when one reads the section under "In humans" titled "Male," one naturally reads the superlatives/comparatives in relation to males before puberty, not in relation to women or "females," who have not yet been described in the article. Structure dictates this reading of grammar. So, men, after puberty, develop "more hair on other parts of body," get "taller/broader/heavier," etc., than they were before puberty. Thus the superlatives/comparatives function to describe secondary sex characteristics, not sexual "difference." Using similar superlatives/comparatives in the section "Female" seems to have a different effect. The implication here, because of the structure of the article, is not that women's secondary sex characteristics are being defined grammatically against pre-pubescent female physical characteristics, but that they are being defined against male secondary sex characteristics. So the comparatives are meant to function differently -- to describe "difference," not secondary sex characteristics -- and also end up being, to my mind, confusing as well as in fact sex/gender-biased. E.g.: are women shorter or do they have higher-pitched voices after reaching sexual maturity than before it? Do they manifest less body hair as a secondary sex characteristic? No; thus "higher voice" is not really a secondary sex characteristic, though it might be a way of describing sexual "difference" in humans generally. Some superlatives under "Female" ("wider" for hips, e.g.) make sense as descriptors of secondary sex characteristics, but I would argue for removing the comparatives insofar as they compare male and female secondary sex characteristics in order to better reflect the topic and logical structure of the article. I am going to go ahead and make the described changes. If this bothers you, go ahead and change it back. This is my first foray into editing Wikipedia articles or getting involved at all with their quality, so I apologize in advance if my changes or approach prove problematic. Final question: why does the adult human female pictured in this article lack pubic hair? Pubic hair is a secondary sex characteristic. It only makes sense to show a shaved/waxed vulva if a section is included on the trend in some Western human cultures to disguise the physical signs of adult women's sexual maturity through shaving/bleaching/waxing/etc. Obviously, the male pictured lacks chest hair, so the section could be written in a way which addresses trends and changing expectations in men's "display" or disguising of secondary sex characteristics. Finalgirl (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Finalgirl, May 2, 2008, 7:55 AM

Removed NON ENCYCLOPEDIC photo

I did this and then was typing my rationale when I got reverted by an over-eager editor. So here's the rationale, and lots of the discussions above had made the same point. It is patently ridiculous to have a photo of a woman, nicely labelled as it is, on a page about secondary sex characteristics that fails to show one of the most obvious sex characteristics - her pubic hair. For that reason, I replaced it with the best I could find - albeit a vintage photo, but at least it shows a woman with her pubic hair. Thanks. 86.150.96.24 (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your talk page, how about you remain polite and find 2 pictures and put them in the talk page first instead of only putting "the best you could find" ? --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

How am I being impolite? And so you are happy for a clearly non-encyclopedic photo to remain on this page? 86.150.96.24 (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant... find 2 pictures and put them in the talk page first instead of only putting "the best you could find" ? --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh my god, are you serious? The fact that the picture is clearly non-encyclopdic is irrelevant? That says it all. And as for being impolite - don't you think reverting me before you'd even bothered to read my rationale wass impolite? The best I could find was in this lot [1] so as you can see the choice isn't brilliant. So I did have a look. This matter of de-pubed women's photos has been discussed on the woman page too. It's a matter of taste but, I cannot stress this strongly enough, does not deserve to be in a page about secondary sex charactersitics. I feel like I am beating my head against a wall. Have you read the comments of the editors above who say the same thing? Whay are you so happy to have that picture rather than one that shows pubes? 'Just beacuse they match' is not good enough. If it's unencyclopedic, it should go. End of. Ask Jimbo. 86.150.96.24 (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You asked a question.... "How am I being impolite?" I said.... irrelevant..... end of discussion. Once again... find 2 pictures and put them in the talk page first instead of only putting "the best you could find" ?--CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thought as much - because you know I wasn't being impolite, and you're just throwing it out there to see if you can get some mud to stick. Please try very very hard to understand this, and I know you are struggling with it: What I found is clearly better at illustrating the topic of the article that what is there So no, I don't need to. You don't call the shots, especially when you are behaving in a way that is detrimental to the project by blocking my valid edits. 86.150.96.24 (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

These pictures have been there unchanged since months. Find something, put them in the talk page, let other editors decide if they merit change or not. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(@ IP) Seriously. The picture you are adding is not good quality. Just leave the original picture there. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Horrible Article, Misleading images

This article is one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. With low encyclopedic value, it also has very misleading photos. It appears that Human Females are 2X bigger in size than males. Please put a proper, dictionary like photo (Drawings are more appropriate since the artist can create two perfectly average men ad women).

If anyone can make a good .svg of two AVERAGE men and women next to each other, it would be very kind.

Thank you --Arad (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I just found out that according to Wikipedia, Human males have some sort of design on their skin (tattoo) and human females have no pubic hair... And than human females are on average 40cm taller than males. =P The photos are simply ridiculous. --Arad (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have resized the images to make them more comparable. Alternatively, feel free to pose for a photo yourself and donate it to us. Rockpocket 18:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Lool... Arad if you are going in writing articles please do. Instead of whining of low encyclopedic value and the images.

Well, the hairless female thing is not all true... But look around, Western culture discourages keeping hair there. ;) ★Dasani★ 06:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about sex characteristics - not western culture. (Or whatever culture the guy with the tattoo is from for that matter). These pictures are ridiculous. I'm sure we can find some better pictures -- this is the internet for crying-out-loud. 76.233.78.160 (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's hilarious that in an article about secondary sex characteristics, the female example has shaved genitals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meicroft (talk • contribs) 00:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Joo, Saa, CiCi, Em, Sirz, Lou, Bethaaaaan, Soph, catz, BJ

The pictures aren't perfect but they illustrate secondary sex characteristics besides the image which focuses on hair growth. As such, they are encyclopedic, freely licensed and originally from this article on the German Wikipedia, which still uses them. Until better pictures are added, I believe these should be left. Galatee (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The pictures are reasonable as anatomical pictures, but really dont add much to the article, apart from illustrating which part is which. It seems that the unnatural lack of hair of the female really results in a misleading idea of what a key characteristic is. (And there appears to be consensus about this above) The labels are a bit simplistic as well (ie body size label?, or muscles label on man?). I've had a good look on wiki-commons and can't find anything better, and it appears that even non-free images usually lack pubic hair Would it be worth looking at including diagrams instead, to contrast changes from youth - adult? Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Size of brain

Is it true that males have bigger brains than females. I know that during the debate about whether woman should get the vote in the UK about 100 years ago that it was allegedly 'proven' that men had bigger brains than women but I think that it's untrue and should be removed from the article unless the sources can be backed up. 95.146.226.45 (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2013‎ (UTC)

The simple answer is, obviously men have bigger brains because they have bigger bodies. When it comes to ratio it is not so clear. There is a well sourced discussion of this question in Sex_differences_in_humans#Brain_size. The consensus there is no difference in ratio. Lova Falk talk 08:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Why does the waist/hip ratio picture show a thin woman and an obese man

I would think it would be more appropriate to show two people with similar body fat percentages.18.4.2.1 (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, who in their right mind thought it would be a good idea to compare the WHR of a skinny woman with an obese man? Of course he'll have a higher waist circumference. This doesn't show anything about gender difference. 02:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)212.107.151.120 (talk)

Bone Structure/resolved

Bone structure link should not be two different links, it should be one link. I'm new here so don't know how to fix it, sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaseUnSensitive (talk • contribs) 18:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC) this has been resolved CaseUnSensitive (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Secondary sex characteristic. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090208223522/http://www.hartnell.edu/faculty/asteinhardt/mywebs/sexual_reproduction.htm to http://www.hartnell.edu/faculty/asteinhardt/mywebs/sexual_reproduction.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927075821/http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/secondary_characteristics.html to http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/secondary_characteristics.html

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) 04:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Awkward paragraph structure fixed

I corrected a tendency in the article’s opening paragraph to meander back and forth between “humans” and “non-human” animals. Originally, there’s 4 sentences about humans/nonhumans/humans/nonhumans. Now there’s 1 about humans and 1 about nonhumans—each a compound sentence talking first about when the characteristics set in, then giving examples of types. Check, though, to be sure I didn’t accidentally delete a source citation. 24.154.117.79 (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)