Talk:Secondary sex characteristic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
-
[edit] 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.
[edit] Human-centricity
 |
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. This article has been tagged since January 2007. |
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)
[edit] "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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
