Talk:Sex characteristics (legal term)

Legal attribute

The term "sex characteristics" is now being used in jurisprudence, so I thought it was worth changing this page from a redirect for Sexual dimorphism to contain information on that legal development, as well as provide basic material pointing to pages focused on physical sex characteristics. This is only a start. Trankuility (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:Redundant fork

Trankuility, this page is redundant to existing pages: Sex organ (Primary sex characteristics), Secondary sex characteristics, and Sexual dimorphism. We don't need this page as well, especially when it is mostly about legal matters. Right now, I have to go, but I will address this again later and bring others in on it to discuss. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Flyer22 Reborn, thanks for your comment. I hope that, when you have more time, you will consider that the legislative term "sex characteristics" is exactly the point of the new material. Additional material is only needed to help people who land on the page for other purposes, and I grant that it needs to be the minimum necessary. Thanks. Trankuility (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Trankuility, we could make this article into a good or decent WP:Broad concept article, but I still don't see it as needed. I'll contact WP:Biology and WP:Anatomy to weigh in on this. Not too long ago, WP:Anatomy editors discussed merging and otherwise consolidating a lot of our sex differences articles. And we did merge and otherwise consolidate some of them; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 7#Sexual differentiation articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that, however, the core purpose is to create a space for material on the legislative attribute, and ways that different jurisdictions are protecting citizens on the basis of sex characteristics. This has arisen since those discussions in WP:Anatomy which, by the way, ignore the neurological material that you have contributed to on Causes of transsexualism, as well as intersex biologies. To my mind, the "sex characteristics" discussion is different to an Intersex human rights discussion because sex characteristics are universalised. It is an opportunity for a WP:Broad concept article, either way, my suggestion would be to let other people comment, but also to let this evolve a little. Trankuility (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Trankuility, my issue is that we can't have this article be titled "Sex characteristics" and then mostly be about legal or human rights commentary, or mostly about intersex issues, no matter that the commentary is about sex characteristics. That's not what most people look for when they type or search "sex characteristics." A Wikipedia article should not be created under such a well-recognized title simply, or mostly, to cover one specific aspect of that topic. Doing so is a disservice to our readers. I brought up the sexual differentiation article merges because it is an example of having too many pages with similar titles and/or covering the same thing (or mostly the same thing); it is an example of merging when the standalone articles are not justified. A page that is titled "Sex characteristics" but is mostly about legal issues is not justified. If this article is to stay, it should be a WP:Broad concept article or renamed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, your latest comment reads like you're changing tack to justify a predetermined conclusion. The issue here is that "sex characteristics" is now starting to become a phrase and an attribute in law and in human rights, in the same way that "gender identity" and "sexual orientation" are for different (and overlapping) populations. Discussion is warranted for that reason. Trankuility (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

There was no "changing tack to justify a predetermined conclusion" on my part. There is me repeating and expanding on why this article, in its current state, should not exist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

There does not seem to be agreement on which material is redundant. Whichever, if the material is not here then there needs to be a disambiguation page. Trankuility (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Editors below agree that the article is redundant if the legal material is not included. The only thing differentiating this article from the others is the legal material. And I've argued that the legal material is not enough to justify this page in its current state. Also, per WP:Disambiguation, a disambiguation page would be inappropriate. The WP:Primary topic for sex characteristics is not the legal aspects; so the Sex characteristics title should not be a disambiguation page just to point to an article about the legal aspects. Information about the legal aspects should either have its own section in the Sex characteristics article (pointing to the main page on that, if it exists) or a link in the article's See also section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

So, there is agreement that there should be a "Sex characteristics" article? I'm confused about your position at present. Trankuility (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2016‎

My position is the following: The current article you've created is not justified. It looks as though it only exists to cover the legal information you included. Look to my "05:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)" post above again; that is my position. It has not changed. The only way I can support this article is if it's a WP:Broad concept article or is renamed. (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Please elaborate on what you meant when you said this, a few minutes ago: "Information about the legal aspects should either have its own section in the Sex characteristics article". What should a "Sex characteristics" page contain? Trankuility (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should be WP:BOLD and do what you suggest to this page. You've excluded the possibility of it being a disambiguation page, you've stated that it duplicates biology material, you've said it can't contain legal material. I'm not certain what is left. Trankuility (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I did not state that the page can't contain legal material. After all, a WP:Broad concept article would mean that the legal aspect is included. As for "Information about the legal aspects should either have its own section in the Sex characteristics article", I meant what we see in the article now -- a section about the legal aspects. But the article should not be mostly composed of legal material; I've repeatedly made that clear. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

So change it, please. Trankuility (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Coming from the WP:Biology request. Looking at this article, it doesn't seem to me to be redundant to the various biological articles, because it's mostly about legal matters - although a hatnote to that effect might be helpful ("this article is about the legal term...") On the other hand, I am less convinced that it isn't redundant to intersex human rights, although, to be honest, at its current level of development I'm not terribly clear what exactly it's about. Anaxial (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Coming from WP:ANATOMY. I agree with Anaxial this article has content that isn't duplicated elsewhere. I also agree with Flyer22 that the scope of the article, if defined by the title "Sex characteristics" is duplicated elsewhere. I suggest move to a better title such as Legal defintions of sex which better clarifies the scope and reflects the actual contents of the article. Many thanks also to Trankuility for uploading and editing this interesting content on Wikipedia :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Anaxial and LT910001 (Tom), thanks for weighing in. I am open to changing the name of this article, but I don't think it should be titled "Legal definitions of sex"; this is because people will no doubt mostly associate the "sex" aspect with sexual activity, and we already cover the legal aspects of sexual activity in other articles, such as Human sexual activity. Since the sources Trankuility used are about sexual characteristics, titling the article Legal definitions of sexual characteristics would be better. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I'd support that move. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I would recommend use of the actual term under discussion, and not a variation of it. And this page would need to disambiguate all relevant terms.. Trankuility (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I just commented on the disambiguation proposal above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Trankuility, Anaxial and LT910001, we also have this article and the Sexual characteristics article. A merge definitely needs to happen. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Clearly no consensus to merge, with the number of people opposing the merge roughly twice those supporting it: mainly due the fact that the two articles address different topics, this one being about legal aspects of human sex characteristics, and the other about biological; and partly due to the other article being noticeably shorter than this one, which would cause the content from this one to dominate. (The proposal from the proponents to delete most of this article to avoid overshadowing the other seems a bit too much like Cinderella's stepsisters.)

However there is rough consensus to rename this article to reduce the confusion between it and Sexual characteristics, with no one opposing rename as such, most of the merge opponents supporting rename, and even some of the merge proponents saying that is one of the main issues they are trying to address by the merge. As to what to rename it to, I see "Sex characteristics (legal)"; "(law)"; "Sex characteristics (legal term)"; and "Laws regarding sex characteristics". Sex characteristics (legal term) is supported by two people, while all the others only by one, so that's what I'm going with, but specifically that isn't necessarily the consensus decision, I'm just being bold; if there is a preference for another term, please discuss and rename, I personally have no preference for it specifically, other than clearly seeing that there is a need to rename it to something like that. --GRuban (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

---

I propose that this article be merged into the Sexual characteristics article due to being a WP:Redundant fork. We do not need both. I will alert WP:Anatomy and WP:Med to the matter. Also see the discussion above on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Happy with a merge from there (sexual characteristics) to here, but not from here to there as 'sex characteristics' is a legal attribute used in human rights jurisprudence, as the law is precise about wording. Also, you really want to merge this into an article with a template message dated May 2013 citing lack of sources? Trankuility (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

You keep giving WP:Undue weight to the legal/intersex aspect. I noted this before above, but the term sex characteristics and its WP:Alternative name sexual characteristics do not mainly refer to legal/intersex issues. Despite this, you have once again significantly expanded this article to mainly focus on those issues. For consistency with the Secondary sex characteristic article, the title should probably be "Sex characteristic" (without the s on the end). But, right now, the Sex organ article, which is the redirect destination for primary sex characteristics, uses the "sexual characteristics" wording for its lead. If "sex characteristic" (with or without the s on the end) is the more common phrasing (and I don't mean for legal/intersex issues), then the content in the Sexual characteristics article should be merged here. But we should not be basing the title of this article on legal/intersex issues, since the primary usage of the term is not referring to those issues. And regardless of which article is the merge destination, the content in the Sexual characteristics article is unsourced either way. We merge unsourced content in cases like these. All it needs is sourcing and tweaking. If this merge proposal does not gain enough traction, I will start an RfC on the matter. I've debated you above; so I'm not sure that I will continue to debate you on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I previously suggested (in the previous discussion) that you should be WP:BOLD and make changes, but instead you return to this debate with the same complaints. I'm not really interested in debating either, but I am interested in documenting a legal attribute that exists, correctly. Documenting that does not preclude anything else happening on this page regarding any other content. Trankuility (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not the same complaints. We see now that I am focusing on the existence of the Sexual characteristics article. The Sexual characteristics article was not mentioned before; I'd overlooked it (even though I'd clicked on it before, and am shown to have made a small edit to it in 2013). And given your above arguments, I don't see how I could have been bold without you challenging matters. I would rather not be bold only to be reverted; I would rather have consensus first. And, anyway, disputes are revisited all the time on this site; you know that. You stated, "Documenting that does not preclude anything else happening on this page regarding any other content." The issue in this regard is you giving far too much weight to non-primary usage and arguing for the title of the article based on that usage. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The same complaint is evident: you claim WP:Redundant fork. The legal content exists, it is reasonable to document it. Oh, and by updating some of that legal content I am only following practice for articles under debate, such as WP:AFD requests. Unless you intend to raise some other policy point here? Trankuility (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The legal/intersex stuff being relevant to the topic is not the issue. How much material you are devoting to it in this article is, per the WP:Due weight policy. So is the fact that we already have an article titled Sexual characteristics, which is an alternative name for "sex characteristics." That you have piled on a lot of legal/intersex material does not make this article any less a WP:Redundant fork. And you made a good cut before. After I made this merge request, however, you decided to add a lot of legal/intersex material to the article yet again. I'm not repeating myself on this matter again. We will see what others have to state, either in this discussion or via an RfC discussion after it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

And I don't know what WP:AFD rationale you are speaking of. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

"There are many good ways to advocate keeping, deleting, or even redirecting an article... If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination." WP:DISCUSSAFD Trankuility (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

This is not an AfD discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I know that, I said "I am only following practice for articles under debate, such as WP:AFD requests" and then you asked what rationale, so I gave it. If you thought it was irrelevant before then you should have said so before, but you also made a point of commenting on article improvements as if you were making a policy point. If you do have a policy point then please make it. Trankuility (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I've already made them. WP:Due is a policy point and WP:Redundant fork is a guideline point. As for asking, I stated, "And I don't know what WP:AFD rationale you are speaking of." I was not asking for clarification; I was wondering why you are citing AfD rationale. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

This kind of revisionism about what has been said is not conducive to this merge proposal discussion, or to talk page discussions more generally. Trankuility (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Eh? Revisionism? Not at all. But just about everything you have stated is not conducive to this merge proposal discussion. Do stay on-topic. AfD discussion does not belong here. We can go ahead and collapse this bit (my "discussion" with you). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support these two articles are too similarly named for readers to be able to distinguish the intended difference in content. Would benefit readers by decreasing confusion and presenting the content (of which there is only a small amount) on a single article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Note also the past discussion above. The issue here is not article content (which should remain somewhere here on WP) but the title of the article for benefit of others reading it (and also editors, to prevent a future proliferation of duplicate articles, when editing time could be best spent at a single article rather than piecemeal on two duplicates). --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article be merged? If so, should it be the destination point for the merge?

We have the Sexual characteristics and Sex characteristics articles. One view is that the article should be merged per WP:Redundant fork. The other view is that the Sex characteristics article should be the destination page for the merge rather than the other way around. Thoughts? For previous arguments, see above on the article talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. Article should obviously be merged. Tom (LT)'s brief point above sums up why. Legal/intersex material can have a section in the merged article. I don't feel strongly about which article is the merge destination. I stated above that "for consistency with the Secondary sex characteristic article, the title should probably be 'Sex characteristic' (without the s on the end). But, right now, the Sex organ article, which is the redirect destination for primary sex characteristics, uses the 'sexual characteristics' wording for its lead. If 'sex characteristic' (with or without the s on the end) is the more common phrasing [...] then the content in the Sexual characteristics article should be merged here." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. One is about biology (covering all organisms - not just humans), the other is about modern day law and human rights of humans only (which is quite different than the past, which possibly also should be covered). Sex characteristics should probably be renamed to Sex characteristics (legal) or something similar. We should not be mixing wider multi-organism biology with the rather fluid and variable legal framework for humans.Icewhiz (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the merge at this time. The fact that the titles are confusing is irrelevant (but should be fixed). The salient fact is that biology and modern legal concepts are different subjects, and so belong in different articles. I'm currently wondering whether the best approach would be to turn both of these titles into a disambiguation page that links to the main articles that use these terms (primary sex characteristics, secondary sex characteristics, and the legal sex characteristics), but I'd need to think about that some more before making a recommendation. Also, a straight merge (at this time) would result in an article that is 50% about the legal situation, which would IMO be UNDUE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Icewhiz and WhatamIdoing, putting the legal/intersex material in a separate article was discussed before. I suggested a Legal definitions of sexual characteristics article. But as for the current article, look at it; it is also about biology. The only thing separating the Sex characteristics article is that it includes a lot of legal/intersex material. But this can be easily remedied. In fact, this is what the article looked like moments before I revisited this discussion and proposed the merge. And either way, per WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy, we include society/legal stuff in its own section with our anatomy articles. Icewhiz stated, "we should not be mixing wider multi-organism biology with the rather fluid and variable legal framework for humans." But we already do that; see WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy. Human and non-human animal material goes in the same article, and so does any legal aspect of the topic. The legal/intersex material can be easily cut down. Right now, it is being housed under a title that is indeed the WP:Alternative name for "sexual characteristics." The terms sex characteristics and sexual characteristics mean the same thing (usually). And with the way the article is now, one can be confused as to which article to link to, as I was when it came to my recent edits at the Woman article, seen here and here. I mean, really, if an editor wants to link to "sex characteristics," which article does the editor link to? So, taking all of this into account, I fail to see how a merge would be problematic. The separation is problematic. And given that the primary usage for "sex characteristics/sexual characteristics" is biology/anatomy, and not law, I don't think that a disambiguation page for the titles would be best. All that stated, I would be willing to strike my "Yes" vote and withdraw this RfC if creating a "Legal definitions of sexual characteristics" article is considered more reasonable. But even in the case that the article is created, it should have a section in this article (whichever title it gets), per WP:Summary style. This means that the content would be in this article either way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree (and stated in my oppose) that the article on the legal-intersex issues should have legal in the name. Not married to any particular name.Icewhiz (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree that the "law" article properly contains a summary of the biology article, so that readers who are interested the legal issue can get the necessary background. Except for the problem of linking, which is easily solved by MOVEing one of the pages to a less generic-sounding name, I see no problems associated with having a separate article.
      The reason I was considering a dab page (specifically a WP:SETINDEX) is because it's not clear to me what should be said about sexual characteristics that isn't properly and completely covered in one of the three other articles (anatomy present at birth, anatomy that appears at puberty, and non-anatomy). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support I read through both articles and am not seeing much issue with combining the two under one title. They are both related and having the biological description is pretty important part of describing the legal aspect. If the legal part gets expanded sufficiently then there should be no problem splitting it back out. As for location I would say it should be Sexual characteristics as it contains the more overview content. AIRcorn (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose merge - I've run into similar issues when a term means one thing in epidemiology (a quantifiable metric) and another thing in disease (symptoms and treatment). Separate articles are needed to differentiate and clarify. Legal perspectives are very important and this would get lost in a merge. It is difficult if a term is used many ways in the same article and takes great skill to maintain that clarity. An article can go on to get cluttered with random edits that would make it even more murky. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 00:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS), I refer you to my "18:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)" comment above, and to the arguments below. There is undue emphasis on the legal/intersex material in this article. No one has yet demonstrated that that two separate articles are needed. You stated that "[l]egal perspectives are very important and this would get lost in a merge," but your "this would get lost in a merge claim is not true. We have legal/social aspects in numerous anatomy/medical articles on Wikipedia, and the material is easily seen. You favor separate articles when they are not needed, which is why so many of your articles are merged. This article should be merged and the legal/intersex material should be significantly reduced per WP:Summary style; we have other articles for that material, including the Intersex human rights and Discrimination against intersex people articles. The legal text is mostly about intersex people; the non-intersex material can go in a different already existing article, if it's not already there. And even if the articles are not merged, the title is an issue (as two oppose votes before you noted) since sex characteristics is an alternative name for sexual characteristics. The title of this article cannot remain "Sex characteristics" as if it's different than "Sexual characteristics." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, Thank you for your response. IF the first paragraph of an article is typically the only part of an article that is read, then all content after that lead paragraph is not read - in any article. Therefore, in every merge, the merged information will appear later in the article to which it has been merged and have the tendency not to be read. I do have to admit that Squirrel attacks is supposed to be merged according to a discussion on its talk page, although it still is not merged. So out of my last 120 articles created, only one has been identified as needing to be merged - So I don't understand the statement 'so many of your articles are merged': perhaps I have been mistaken for another editor. And even if that were true, it would be irrelevant to this merge discussion since we really aren't discussing my articles. Also, this response is not an invitation to any editor to propose merges for the content which I have contributed to the encyclopedia; this has been the response to just a few of comments that I have made on talk pages and it is a risk. These proposals for merges have not come from other editors involved in the merge discussion here on this talk page. If we are discussing merges and the content I have contributed, and if anyone is interested, I instead would like to point out that often content that I have created is merged into articles without consensus or discussion - it often takes me by surprise. I usually just respond by re-inserting the deleted content and go on my way. I apologize for discussing my personal 'merge' history, but I didn't bring it up. As for the 'title of this article cannot be retained', that is probably going to be decided by consensus. I still oppose the merge. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS), there is no proof that "the first paragraph of an article is typically the only part of an article that is read." It is the case that many readers only read the lead, which is not the same as only reading the first paragraph, but this is why, per WP:LEAD, the lead should include an adequate summary of the article. The lead has nothing to do with whether or not this or any other article should be merged. Furthermore, per WP:Due, not everything belongs in the lead anyway. This is also no reason to then split that material off into its own article. You stated, "So I don't understand the statement 'so many of your articles are merged': perhaps I have been mistaken for another editor." Surely, you remember stating the following on your talk page: "My articles sometimes disappear into merges without me knowing it." Or stating the following at WP:Med: "I have had the content removed and merged into existing articles with no notification to me as the article creator, no discussion and no consensus many times. I guess that is being bold on the part of the editor doing the merging." And as that latter discussion shows, you often think creating a separate article is appropriate, which is why your view on merging is relevant. An editor should know when merging is a good idea and when it is a bad idea. In your case, you seem to always be against merging, especially if it is your article. Per WP:No split, WP:No page and WP:Spinout, a separate article is not always the best course of action. Unnecessarily creating a separate article, especially simply for article count, is not helping our readers; it is unnecessarily causing our readers to go to a separate article when they can instead get that information on the same page. I repeat: Not everything needs its own article, and certainly usually not four sentences. "Four sentences" are your words in that latter discussion. So you are obviously free to vote "oppose," but your "oppose" vote has offered nothing for solving the problem at hand, which is one article being titled "Sex characteristics" and the other being titled "Sexual characteristics" and both dealing with biology, which is bound to confuse rather than help readers. I could easily merge these two articles, and well at that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the issue. A proper lead of a merged article would also summarize a bit about the legal part. PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, merge per the discussion below. Whether you're talking about the legal or the biological aspect, it's the same thing you're talking about. When giving intersex due weight (1-2 sentences), there isn't enough content for two separate articles about two perspectives on the same thing. No preference on the direction of the merge. PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Merge - Legal terminology is a 'thing' with an evolution (and references thereof) all of its own; I don't see what good mixing that in with separately-evolving biological(-science) usage will bring. Why not simply disambiguate both articles? TP ✎ ✓ 20:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

ThePromenader, to briefly reiterate what PizzaMan and I have stated, Wikipedia usually covers overlapping topics like this in one article. Furthermore, we have WP:Broad concept articles. You state "legal terminology," but do take the time to thoroughly look at the text and its sources. The sources aren't even about legal terminology and the text is not solely about legal terminology. And either way, legal/intersex issues with regard to sex characteristics are still about biology and are still an aspect of the sex characteristics topic. With regard to the legal/intersex material in this article, we already have articles for it; this recent revert is just one example. Look at the Intersex human rights section in the article; we already have an Intersex human rights article. The legal/intersex material in this article is material taken from existing articles or material that can be relocated to existing articles, with just a summary here. Given that, and the fact the sex characteristics topic usually does not focus on legal issues, the legal/intersex material in this article should be significantly downsized...like it was before. Even if we keep both articles, some legal material will be included in the one that is not focused on legal issues; this is per WP:Summary style. Both articles are already disambiguated; that is one of the problems. One is titled "Sex characteristics" and the other is titled "Sexual characteristics," which confuses readers. The only thing separating them is the amount of legal/intersex material that has been added to this article. Renaming one of the articles to add "legal" in it would help with the confusion, but we'd still have an unnecessary/redundant article since we already have the Intersex human rights article, which is about legal issues with respect to intersex people. We also have the Legal recognition of intersex people article. I ask you to reassess this matter thoroughly and reconsider your vote. Given that this RfC, at this point in time, is likely to close as no "consensus," though, renaming this article so that "legal" is in the title will likely be the next step. Currently, Template:Intersex sidebar calls this article "Sex characteristics (legal attribute)," and it is right beside the Legal recognition of intersex people article, as if the content can't be consolidated to one article. I'll go ahead and alert the WP:Disambiguation talk page to this discussion and see if editors there have opinions on this issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll also go ahead and leave a note at Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Responding to the note at AT - I would suggest a Partial merge \ partial rename ... ending up with one article for the biological aspects, and one for the legal aspects. The titles should have the parentheticals "(biology)" and "(law)" added, to make it clear what the actual topic is. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Rename "Sex characteristics (legal term)" for preference. Or merge into a "legal" section in a relevant article. I don't see a wp:due issue with there being a separate article, but if it is a legal term, it assumes too much on the part of the reader that they might know that it's a legal term. I can imagine scenarios where a user using the search bar might arrive at this page looking for info on sexual dimorphism and irritatingly have to use a few extra clicks to get to the right page. As a user, I'd definitely rather have this info on a page related to sexual dimorphism in a "legal" section, but can see the need for an additional page if the amount of info relevant to the legal term becomes (or is intended to become) greater. Edaham (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, as these are not the same topic, but rename. We should have Sex characteristics as the biology article, and Sex characteristics (legal term) as the other one. Using "sexual" instead of "sex" is pointless (fails WP:CONCISE).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • essentially agree. Edaham (talk) 12:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Replied below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I have no opposition to Flyer's idea to merge the legal material to Intersex human rights. Just not into the biology article, which should not have anything on this stuff but a WP:SUMMARY pointer. Way too many of our articles improperly commingle hard science and socio-political material already. This is a problem to solve, not compound.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Disagree strongly about "sexual" being pointless, this is still the main adjective for "of gender", whereas "sex" still primarily relates to sexual acts when used adjectivally - in UK at least. Why be less exact when three letters are involved? Pincrete (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that most people associate the term sex characteristics with sexual activity, except for when thinking of what the sex organs do. They are more likely to think of sexual activity when seeing "sexual characteristics." As for "sexual" still being the main adjective for "of gender", it's sex that is usually used interchangeably with gender or distinguished from it. After all, we state "sex and gender distinction," not "sexual and gender distinction." Either way, per what I I stated below, there will still be an issue when renaming this article to "Sex characteristics (legal term)" or similar. So I can't even truly support a rename. I'll only be supporting it to solve the title redundancy issue. But the fact that, after the rename, this article will be composed of sources that are not really defining any legal definition of sex characteristics and that it will hardly be any different than the Intersex human rights article will be a problem. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

"sex and gender" are being used as nouns in that example. I checked my impression before posting, it confirmed that in Brit Eng the use of 'sex' to mean 'of gender' is the 2nd or third use. 'Sexual' is the more precise adjective, why not use the more exact term? I may suffer from a more than usually infantile mind, (or more UK Eng) but when I see "Sex characteristics", I expect to see a description of activites, not of anatomies or psychologies etc. Pincrete (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Google "sex characteristics"; it refers to anatomy, not to sexual activities. Usually anyway. The same goes for "sexual characteristics." I don't consider "sexual characteristics" the more exact term. Both are commonly used, and I think that I see "sex characteristics" more when looking at anatomy sources on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Rename sex characteristics as "Laws regarding sex characteristics " or something similar. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• Merge my 2c for what it's worth, seeing as these two topics relate to the same main topic (ie sex characteristics), I think they could be easily merged. Neither topic is large enough to need a separate article. Merging the topics helps keep the information in one place, which helps make life easier for both readers and editors. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• question the way the rfc is stated, both "views" seem to be in favour of merging and the only question is which article to merge with which. If i say yes, what do i say yes to? The direction of a merge or the merge? Please distinguish those two clearly. I suggest formulating three options: merge in one direction, merge in the other or no merge, for people to vote on.PizzaMan (♨♨) 06:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

PizzaMan, see the initial #Merge proposal section above. I worded the RfC the way that I did because, in that section, the article creator does not completely oppose a merge. The article creator opposes the Sexual characteristics article being the destination page for the merge. So I decided to ask if the article should be merged. And if so, which article should be the destination page for the merge. I stuck to the heart of the dispute. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Suppose my response is yes, what exactly am i saying yes to? Just the merge? Or also the direction of the merge? If so, which of the two directions? I propose presenting three numbered options, since there are three options. No merge, merge into sex characteristics and merge into sexual characteristics. Reducing three options to a yes/no format will lead to discussions about what people mean when they vote yes or no.PizzaMan (♨♨) 05:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

PizzaMan, I don't understand what it is difficult about the RfC questions. Look at how Aircorn answered the questions seamlessly. It is not unheard for an RfC to pose two questions. If you state "yes," you would obviously be agreeing that the articles should be merged. After all, "yes" clearly does not flow with the other question. The other question requires clarification. If you state nothing after "yes," then we don't know which page you think should be the destination page for the merge, or we can assume that you don't have an opinion on that. But which page should be the destination page is something that can be worked out afterward. The main question of the RfC is if the two articles should be merged. I don't think that your proposed RfC setup is needed, and I don't think it's a good idea to change the setup this late in the RfC. I also don't yet see a need to start a fresh RfC. Anyone disagreeing with merging the article can simply state "No" or "Oppose," like two others have done so far. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

It was confusing to me, because i didn't read the rfc title, just your rfc text. Anyway, to give my opinion on the rfc, i think this article has a bigger issue that needs to be solved first. There is an undue emphasis on intersex people and rights. Such a minor aspect of sex(ual) characteristics should only occupy a fraction of the article. This suggests to me that editors withe a political agenda have been working on this article. I can't give a proper opinion, based on the content of the article in it's current state, if merging is a good idea. If this article is about intersex, then it has no purpose and the other parts of it should be absorbed in the article on sexual characteristics. PizzaMan (♨♨) 05:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@PizzaMan: - regarding this concern, the two oppose votes (me included) were for keeping one article for biology (human and otherwise, with very little legal and intersex content), and keep the second article for legal/intersex, along with a rename (with legal or law in the title - various permutations).Icewhiz (talk) 05:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

That's one way to patch the problem. Ideally, the part about intersex would get due weight, no more than one or two sentences imho. If we feel that leaves enough content on this article to warrant two seperate articles, then not merging could be an option. However, that doesn't really solve the issue this legal article has. PizzaMan (♨♨) 07:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

PizzaMan, the undue emphasis is one of my concerns, as seen by my statements above. I do not see that two separate articles are needed whatsoever, and I've given reasons why. See my "18:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)" post in the Survey section above. In my opinion, the article should be merged and the legal/intersex material should be significantly reduced per WP:Summary style; we have other articles for that material, including the Intersex human rights and Discrimination against intersex people articles. The legal text is mostly about intersex people; the non-intersex material can go in a different already existing article, if it's not already there.

When you stated "If this article is about intersex, then it has no purpose," were you referring to the merge? Or that the content should be covered in the Intersex article because it doesn't need its own article? The Intersex article has subarticles, and I just pointed to two. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, i was referring to a merge. While the legal and biological aspects are different perspectives, that doesn't always mean there have to be different articles. Especially if half this article is about intersex. So, i'm convinced. I'll vote above. PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn Is there a wiki policy against cleaning up the intersex bit of the article during the rfc? It currently confounds the rfc. PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

PizzaMan, not a policy, but I think it's a bad idea since the RfC is about the current state of the article. Besides, you are likely to be reverted by the article's creator. I should have heavily advertised this RfC, given that a few have weighed in thus far. It looks like the RfC will close as "no consensus," and then we will need to move on to a WP:Requested move issue after that. One thing that WhatamIdoing suggested is a disambiguation page. Blueboar also seemed to suggest a disambiguation page when stating that one article should be titled "Sex characteristics (biology)" and the other "Sex characteristics (law)," which would likely lead to "sex characteristics" being a disambiguation page and the Sexual characteristics page redirecting to it. My issue with this is that the primary usage of the term sex characteristics is biology, not law. Even the legal aspect in the article is using sex characteristics to refer to one's biology. We shouldn't be redirecting readers to a disambiguation page when they type in or click on "sex characteristics" or "sexual characteristics." And if we suggest that "sex characteristics" and "sexual characteristics" redirect to the Sex organ article while the "Sex characteristics (biology)" and "Sex characteristics (law) articles exist, there is still the fact that the Sex organ article is about the primary sex characteristics while the term sex characteristics refers to both primary sex characteristics and secondary sex characteristics. Furthermore, like I stated above, we already have the Intersex human rights and Legal recognition of intersex people articles for the legal/intersex content that is currently in this article. In this case, a Sex characteristics (law) article would be almost exclusively about intersex people when we already have articles for that material. And the non-exclusive content can be covered in already existing articles as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

My 2 cents, is that the biolgy article should retain the name, while the law/intersex article should have legal/law in it. The actual method legally determining gender (or intersex) based on sex organs is notable by itself, it just should not be condlated with the general biolgy article.Icewhiz (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz, what evidence do you have that the legal/intersex material in this article is WP:Notable in its own right outside of the intersex human rights topic, which we already have an article for? I'm not seeing any sources that are specifically about sex characteristics in terms of law; I'm seeing sources that are about intersex human rights sometimes using the term sex characteristics. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Edaham and SMcCandlish, regarding your suggestions, what do you make of what I stated with my "16:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)" post above? I stated the following: "The sources aren't even about legal terminology and the text is not solely about legal terminology. And either way, legal/intersex issues with regard to sex characteristics are still about biology and are still an aspect of the sex characteristics topic. With regard to the legal/intersex material in this article, we already have articles for it; this recent revert is just one example. Look at the Intersex human rights section in the article; we already have an Intersex human rights article The legal/intersex material in this article is material taken from existing articles or material that can be relocated to existing articles, with just a summary here. [...] Even if we keep both articles, some legal material will be included in the one that is not focused on legal issues; this is per WP:Summary style."

The content in question is almost exclusively about intersex people and intersex rights. I just told Icewhiz that I'm not seeing any sources that are specifically about sex characteristics in terms of law. So how would a Sex characteristics (legal term) article be different than the Intersex human rights article? From what I can see, it would have a lot of WP:Synthesis. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, Rename it (to anything which clarifies and distinguishes its content) or merge it. As I said before, my issue isn't with its content, it is that its name creates a red herring for people who might be looking for information on more general aspects of differences between the sexes. Edaham (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources in the article not really being about a legal term

Thanks to GRuban for closing the merge proposal above. Per that close, I redirected "sex characteristics" to the Sexual characteristics article. But, as noted before, that article should probably be retitled "Sex characteristics."

As for the current state of this article, I will likely at some point seek that it is merged with the Intersex human rights article (if the sex characteristics legal article mainly remains the way it is now); this is because of what I noted above: The article is almost exclusively about intersex human rights, and the sources in the article so far aren't about legal terminology (as in explicitly defining sex characteristics as a legal term). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)