Talk:Sex differences in humans
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 11 August 2005. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 Archives |
| Archive 1 |
[edit] sex and intelligence
I removed the following from the "sex and intelligence" section:
In a study by C Davison Ankney from the University of Western Ontario, Ankney found that men on average, have a 100-gram advantage over women in brain weight. A study done in Denmark in the late 1990's documented that men have about 15 per cent more neurons than women. Other studies published showing that men have an advantage of 4 to 5 IQ points over women by early adulthood.[1]
The reason is that this section is meant to be a summary of the current evidence from large scale studies of IQ and sex. Currently, most large scale replicated studies show no significant difference between average overall IQ scores of men and women. A few studies show some advantage for males, but these are discussed in the main "Sex and Intelligence" article.
The referenced study seems flawed because it focuses on SAT scores. Very low IQ people would not take SATs. Since males are overrepresented at the extreme ends of the bell curve (v low and v high IQs), this would eliminate the men who would bring the average down (v low IQs) while keeping the men who would bring the average up (v high IQs). Fewer women would be eliminated (since fewer would be in the low IQ group) but since they are clustered more around the mean they would not contain so many v high IQs to pull up their average.
Also, the relationship between brain weight and intelligence is not that clear-cut: men weigh more than women overall and so would be expected to have larger brains.
Fionah 09:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that this should be reintroduced to the article. There is another study, this one by Manchester University, that indicates that there is a 5 point discrepancy, which begins at puberty:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4183166.stm
If it is not reintroduced to the article, then the existence of such studies should at the very least be mentioned. Shining Arcanine 03:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe introduce it into the main sex and intelligence article? My question would be whether this study included people at all levels of IQ, including low IQs. Because of men's greater variability, if you cut out people below a certain level you will skew the average. Fionah 08:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] waist hip ratio
The literature on the subject of waist to hip ratio seems to make use of a unique method of denoting such a ratio by using a single decimal number like 0.7 for women and 0.9 for men as a 'ratio'. This is confusing since it really should be; 0.7:1 (the waist is 70% the circumference of the hips) for women and 0.9:1 (the waist is 90% the circumference of the hips) for men.
A ratio is the differential relationship between two quantities, so a ratio with a greater difference should be thought of as a greater ratio. However, in the case of WHR, the 'greater' WHR number is actually a smaller ratio (in normal terminology.) It really should be described as women having a greater WHR than men, but that would appear to conflict with the fact that the number 0.7 is smaller than the number 0.9, even though both numbers represent only half of their respective ratios.
I personally find this confusing since it goes against any other use of the term 'ratio' that I've seen. But it seems to be the norm for this particular ratio, probably because it is easier for the general public to handle a single number when reading diet books and trying to improve their WHR.
Oh well...
Doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. 10:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Nanisani
Agree it's confusing! That's why i added "that is, their waists are smaller by comparison with their hips". However, this has been removed as "redundancy". If it clears up confusion, i don't think it's redundant. Actually, to make it clearer, maybe we should have something like "Women have smaller waists in comparison to their hips (see waist-hip ratio)". Fionah 10:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Women "somewhat" or "far" happier?
DarkSenel on 00:34, 19 April 2007 changed "Overall, women claim to be somewhat happier than men with their lives" to "Overall, women claim to be far happier than men with their lives". However, from the the Pew study that is used as a reference [1]: "Women are somewhat happier than men with their lives overall, according to 38,000 interviews in 44 countries conducted by the Pew Research Center for the Pew Global Attitudes Survey... Women give their lives a better rating in 29 of 44 countries surveyed. In some countries the differences between genders is very small and in others it is quite significant. Women's greater satisfaction with life is pervasive in many of the less-developed regions of the world: in 7 of the 8 countries surveyed in Asia, 6 of the 8 nations in Latin America and all 5 nations in east and southern Africa. In particular, women are much happier than men in Japan, India, the Philippines, Pakistan and Argentina. In contrast, men and women in Western Europe and Canada are quite similar in the way they judge their lives." This indicates that "far happier" is an exaggeration. It should be simply "Overall, women claim to be happier than men with their lives" or "Overall, women claim to be happier than men with their lives in 29 out of 44 countries". This gives a much better summary of what the study actually found. Fionah 08:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Images of female and male sexual characteristics...
I just wanted to discuss the two images for "Female Sex Characteristics" and "Male Sex Characteristics" in the "Physical differences" section. Firstly the labels are different sizes in each image when scaled to the same size, with the female images labels nearly impossible to read without clickling on it.
Secondly, I'm not sure these are the two best images to use to illustrate the differences in sex characteristics. I'm going to try to be as delicate as possible here so that I don't offend peoples' sensibilities.
Starting with the female image; it is lacking any body hair, which is an important secondary sexual characteristic (this is clearly labelled on the male image). Omitting it; regardless of today's cultural tastes, is a major omission for an encyclopaedia. Also in the photograph the model is in a rather bizarre pose; she looks a little confused and out of place, almost as if shes wondering whats going on. The labels are also a little bizarre and this image used on any other page would be confusing. For example; there is a label pointing to the shoulders that just says "shoulders". Thats not very useful; perhaps "narrower shoulders" etc would be more useful; something displaying a little comparative anatomy and reflecting the points raised in the text.
The male figure shares a number of the same issues. However one extra major issue is the setting; a naked man standing in a field. I'm sure it's all very artistic but it's not very necessary, and it makes it look odd when coupled with the woman's picture with her standing on a white background (with a strange pose). Also the fact the man has tattoos may be confusing to some readers; I doubt people would think tattoos are a secondary sexual characteristic of the male but you can never be too careful!
When studying anatomy and displaying it in textbooks; persons are usually displayed in the "anatomical position"; this is standing straight, facing forward, with the arms by the persons side and the palms also facing forward. Perhaps a photograph or an illustration of a naked man and woman in the anatomical position would be more appropriate.
Finally there is a very artistic but ultimately pointless image of a man, pregnant woman and child. As nice as it is; it add little more than decoration to the page and at the very least should probably moved elsewhere so that the text is easier to read.
What do people think? Anyone know of some better images that could be adapted for purpose? --DomUK 21:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] pov tag (sex differences are NOT gender differences)
This article has sections on sex differences that seem to speak to the title of the article. However it also has sections relating to gender-feminist propaganda about gender-differences that are both POV and have nothing to do with sex differences. This confusion is what feminists have been banking on for political power plays as they pervert and the meaning of both terms. I added a pov tag here until we take 'gender' out of this article and focus on sex differences alone. Sex is a biological or medical determined characteristic. Gender which might include sex is much more complicated. To confuse sex and gender as is being done so shamelessly in the mass media today is how feminista-feminists rape the language for their ideological and political agendas. Thus the pov tag on the article. Please spare us another Assault on Reason here.
I also pov tagged the Economics section for the shameless study of so-called 'sex' differences the here. To claim the sex (or gender!) CAUSES social, political or economic differences is an assault on reason too. Personal choice, personal competence/incompetence and a host of other factors play into these effects. Please remove the gender-feminist propaganda from this article and focus us on legitimate sex differences as is done so well in the top of the article.
To be at all credible, this article needs to study sex differences that are directly associated to sex rather than making the ludricous leap to include differences attributable to gender, culture, preference, and/or a host of other associated causes that often overlap. As the definition clearly states: A sex difference is a distinction of biological and/or physiological characteristics typically associated with either males or females of a species in general. There are no socio-political distinctions in this definition. 128.111.95.45 00:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- First off, please assume good faith. The editors of this article are not necessarily "feminista-feminists" intent on pushing their "propaganda". Your comment was a little unclear, but I'm assuming you object to the inclusion of things like "clothing" and "consumer behaviour" in this article, as they are more closely related to gender and culture than to biological sex. However, these sections focus on observable differences between sexes (without claiming either that they are determined by biological differences between men and women, or that they are down to culture). Perhaps these sections are irrelevant to the topic, but I don't see how they are POV. Cowpepper 12:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- No-one's been back to discuss this in two weeks, so I'm removing the POV tags. Cowpepper 15:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I must agree completely. The two images are inconsistent with one another. The images should be deleted without a replacement.
[edit] "Techincally [sic], women tend to shop more than men."
What is this supposed to mean?
- they spend more money in an average year?
- they spend more money in an average shopping trip?
- they spend more money in an average visit to one shop?
- they acquire a greater mass of shopping in <one of the above>?
- they spend more time shopping in <one of the above>?
- they make more shopping trips in an average year?
- they make more visits to individual shops in an average year?
- they visit a wider variety of shops?
- they visit a wider variety of kinds of shops?
- something else entirely?
-- Smjg 15:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] split article
article is split into sex and gender differences. gender is related to sociology and sex related to biology. see 2 sections(pov comment) above for details Lara_bran 05:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] However for every male that sires two offspring, another male fails to sire an offspring.[5].
I'm a new poster, but AFAITC this can't be true. And yes, I know, this is original research, and not my field, but it's also basic math. If the population size is 60 with 30 males and 30 females, then every man could have a mate and sire 2 offspring, resulting in the next generation having 60. If 15 males each sire [b]four[/b] offspring then the other 15 wouldn't sire any assuming the next gen is 60. Tall Dan 16:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Other health differences
It is mistakenly said that women are longer in the torso (shorter legged)than men. This is not true. Women do have a lower center of gravity, but their legs are longer relative to torso length as compared to men. Weight is in the hips. Men carry more weight in the shoulder and torso area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.230.125 (talk • contribs)
[edit] Cleanup
Article needs cleanup. Content needs to be rearranged. Notes section has redundant entries, needs removals. Lara_bran 04:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Height
I would apprieciate- and I think others would too- more info on height differencial- what the statistics are and how they might vary from place to place or time to time.
IceDragon64 22:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fiction more worthy than facts, celebrities more than scientists
"Biological text books state that humans have a high degree of sexual dimorphism, but closer study by science fiction writer David Brin (2004) has shown that this is not the case.[Full citation needed] Brin also published a popular essay, 'Neoteny: A Paleo-Anthropological Speculation', in 1996." So the opinions of a science fiction writer should overrule that of scientists? Would anyone agree that this should be deleted? 80.0.130.44 (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Depends, I mean writing science fiction doesn't preclude you from making a thorough literature review for example. A citation would be necessary to make this kind of judgement. Could this whole notion of "closer study" be derived from the following sentence in the mentioned essay 'Neoteny: A Paleo-Anthropological Speculation'?
-
- "Let me also emphasize that Homo sapiens appears less riven by sexual dimorphism than most species, [..]"
- If that's the case one should certainly look for the source Brin relies on for this statement.
- Also, "biological text books" is much to general I'm convinced that they vary in their presentation of the topic. --88.72.201.11 (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Removing Sentence
I am removing the sentence that sais "women give birth to babies; men do not."This sentence is sexist and unnecessary. That sentence implies that men are worthless and nothing. Keep adding that sentence and I will keep on deleting it.SoundBlast (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- How can stating a biological fact be sexist? --88.72.201.11 (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Skin
It is obvious that women can stand the cold better but I read somewhere that men can stand the heat better, because of their slightly thicker skin. I also read that women have a higher chance of getting skin cancer because of their thinner skin, which the sun penetrates easier.
I think that should be added. SoundBlast (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
