Talk:Sex differences in medicine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Yes, Sexism

It comes as no surprise to me that this article is deeply flawed, due to the boring yet irritatingly predictable sexism against men in western society. "Histrionic personality disorder" is noted as due to sexist "attitudes", "anti-social behavior" as given no such appendage. Considering that the lists sole purpose is to list the differences, it manages to miss out that, if you go by the WHO, cancer affects more men than women. It also fails to mention cardiovascular disease. Or tuberculosis, both of which affect men more than women. Females are generally less vulnerable than males to chronic illnesses. Thats quoting Wikipedia. "Overall, men are more likely to suffer from cancer, with much of this driven by lung cancer." But, subject as one author here might say, to "deeply ingrained social attitudes".....

Mensrights 24/1/2011 86.42.240.56 (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

added that respiratory infections and tuberculosis are more common in men. Cancer was already on the list. Hope I've helped even out some of the bias Feralcateater000 (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

it

it is a rather well known fact - the reference:

http://www2.health-center.com/mentalhealth/personality/borderline.htm

It is a disputed fact. Read the text of Histrionic personality disorder (from the US National Library of Medicine), or do a little research on the social causes of medical diagnosis. Wikipedia does not exist in order to provide free web hosting for weirdo distortions of reality. Tannin

I looked at the linked source and didn't se any statistics at all on sex-specificity. I also agree with Tannin that a web-page is not an authoritative "reference." But I want to add another observation: the article mixes up two different kinds of so-called sex-specific illnesses. It seems pretty obvious that only males will get testicular cancer, and only females will get cervical cancer. This is VERY different from illnesses like heart attacks, suicide, or BPD. In these cases, epidemiologists at best provide probabilities and tendencies. But even if 90% of all BPD patients were female and 10% were male (and we are assuming too that males and females seek treatment and are diagnosed equally, which is far from certain), one can hardly call BPD a "sex-specific illness." Slrubenstein

the bpd is qoted as 3 times more frequent - there is paragraph in the middle. frequency of histrionics is disputed by some, but there are more diagnosed females. the frequencies for eating disorder are also supported on that web page.

Sorry I missed that. In any event, it is still by no means "sex-specific." To list it as such in this article, especially without going into the methodological issues, would be misleading. If you are especially interested in (and knowledgeable about) the issues concerning sex and the prevelance of various disorders (BPD, Bulemia) I wouldn't want to discourage you from contributing to an article. BUT it should not be called "sex-specific illnesses," it should be something like The relationship between one's sex and illness -- and it really would have to go into greater detail about likely sociological/cultural causes, as well as methodological issue like bias in reporting and diagnosis. Slrubenstein

i agree article could have a better title. it discusses illnesses which are not exclusively specific to a sex, but which occur with different frequencies -abcdef

this is link to gender specific medicine. the term seems not to be exclusive.

http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/partnership/publications.html

abcdef - I fixed the title. I created the link carelessly - not properly considering the exact meaning of the phrase. Martin

Article title

Surely it would be clearer if this page were called "Gender and illness", since it's nothing to do with sex? ··gracefool |☺ 04:53, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That would be exactly backwards! "Sex" is biological, "Gender" is sociological. Medical statistics are compiled with regard to sex, not gender. "Sex" is a euphemism for "sexual intercourse", not a synonym. Which is not to say the article couldn't be better titled or better written... - Nunh-huh 05:00, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree, the current Title is terrible. It is implying illness caused by sex. Since we have Gender-biased diagnosing, would Gender-biased Illnesses be any better? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, like Nunh-huh said, Wikipedia currently defines Sex as a biological/anatomical classification, and Gender as a sociological/psychological classification. It is because of these definitions that Gender does not have direct biological impacts on illness. Thus, to use the word "Gender" instead of "Sex" would go against the biological aim of the article and the category it's in. Changing the title would also most likely be either inconsistent with the category its in, inaccurate, or in-concise. DialecticArguments (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Endometriosis

Endometriosis has, very rarely, been found in men undergoing estrogen treatment for prostate cancer. Although this is rare, it is significant for understanding endometriosis as a disease. It casts severe doubt on the main suggested cause of endometriosis, retrograde menstruation. I will amend the page (which currently says it only occurs in women) to this effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louisecooke (talk • contribs) 21:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC). Signature added by SUM1 (talk) 24 December 2019

Inconsistency

I've noticed an inconsistency within the article. The article states that "Sex differences in medicine should not be confused with gender differences. The Institute of Medicine recognizes sex differences as biological at the chromosomal level, whereas gender differences are based on self-representation and other factors including biology, environment and experience." However, it goes on to say that Sex-related illnesses have "social causes that relate to the gender role expected of that sex in a particular society" and "different levels of prevention, reporting, diagnosis or treatment in each gender." These two parts of the article directly contradict each other. My only question is, what should be the intent of this article? To note illnesses that are more common in one sex than the other with a physiological explanation, or to also list diseases with behavioral, societal, and psychological causes that are preventable in a gender neutral society? DialecticArguments (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Unsupported, Over-generalized "Scientific" Claims

Making claims such as "occurs exclusively in men" or "occur only in women" is not ethical and completely incorrect when reporting or reiterating research results. To claim that men or women cannot develop a specific disease ignores the other genders and sexes who most definitely can even though legally they are classified as the sex male or female or socially identify as a man or woman. For example: in the wiki article of Klinefelter syndrome these people (whether one would like to classify them as males/men or females/women or other), it states that those with Klinefelter syndrome can develop "certain health problems that typically affect females." The percentage about women verses men who are diagnosed with breast cancer can be somewhat misleading because males can still die from breast cancer, due to the fact that it is so rare that it takes a long period of time to convince doctors to attempt to diagnose until much later stages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SWillow (talk • contribs) 02:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

In response to a lot of the above topics

I attempted to help remove the confusion regarding gender in the article by mentioning that disease does not care about gender (I added that trans men can also develop endometriosis or ovarian cancer). I didn't do this the other way around because a lot of the research on prostate cancer does seem to indicate trans women are less susceptible, and given that intersex people in general are rare I was worried mentioning them would be WP:UNDUE Feralcateater000 (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Change of Wikilink to men and women

@Maneesh: I've just reverted your two edits to the Wikilinks for men and women [1], [2]. Not all men are male humans, and not all women are female humans. Trans and non-binary people exist, and still have the same rate for some illnesses and disorders as a cisgender. For example a trans woman can still get prostate cancer, and a trans man can still get cervical cancer. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Transwomen are obviously also men, adult males. The edit summary was crystal clear: almost each and every line (and each and every RS that supports each line) uses man/men and woman/women. The fact that some males identify as trans (or "non-binary") has no relevance here. Maneesh (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

No, trans women are not men. Trans women are women. Likewise trans men are not women. Trans men are men. Trans is an adjective applied to man/woman. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

This is religious thinking, you are entitled to it, but you can't use a title in section here the way you have. Look at all the points, the section titles reflect those points accurately and must use man/woman. Maneesh (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

No. It is not religious thinking, and I am going to ask you to self-revert per WP:BRD, as there is not a consensus for this change from the previously stable version. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Please count the number of occurrences of "men" and "women" below each respective title out of the total number of points. Maneesh (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Also please note, the article is titled Sex differences in medicine. Using male/female would be more appropriate here than man/woman. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Men are adult human males, women are adult human females - is it surprising to you that the underlying RS generally use those words that way?Maneesh (talk)

I will not be baited into an edit war with you. I will ask one last time, please self-revert per WP:BRD as there is not a consensus for this change you have made. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I see nothing in BRD that compels me to revert my own (not bold at all) edit. "Men" and "women" is what is being used on almost each and every line in the sections you are trying to revert . Please do put up an RfC if you need to. Maneesh (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Bold, Revert, Discuss. You Boldly made two edits 1, 2. They were reverted 3. Now it is time to Discuss why those changes are WP:DUE and to establish a consensus for them. Right now, there is no consensus for this edit. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Ain't a bold edit, you don't acknowledge that the title is merely reflecting the the content below it. Looking at BRD, all of these seem to apply:

BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing.

BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.

Maneesh (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Maneesh, if you insist in your editing that transwomen are ... men and trans men are women you will be blocked from editing: I have never seen any other result come from that POV impulse, when an editor insists on following it to its logical conclusion. This will happen even faster if you remove sources to do so, as you have today. So you will have to decide which is more important to: your POV or continuing to edit Wikipedia. You can't have both, as your recent edit history makes clear. Newimpartial (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem saying "transwomen are male", particularly in the talk section of an article on sex differences in medicine. Not POV, just a simple facts. I'm terribly uninterested in a wikpedia that censors such simple truths. Please do go out there and do your best to ban me if you think your efforts will be successful. Maneesh (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

You best route, is to open an RFC on the matter-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn’t including transgender people in this article mostly be wp:UNDUE? Also trans women are less likely than cisgender men to develop prostate cancer, according to this source: https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/105/9/e3293/5864158 So treating them as though they are cisgender men is wrong. Their bodies do not behave the same way. Feralcateater000 (talk)

A perfect example of why WP:STICKTOSOURCE is important. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

More strange reverts

Most of the illnesses in the lists are not "sex-related". Almost each and every line uses "men" and "women", associated changes to reflect that simple fact have been reverted. Trans identification has nothing to do with sex-related differences, vague ideas around gender have no place in this article. Maneesh (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps in your mind "men" means AMAB people and "women" means AFAB people, but that isn't what the recent, reliable sources say, which is what matters on Wikipedia. Also, stop edit-warring and please obtain consensus for your edits before reinstating them. Newimpartial (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

What is in my mind doesn't really matter. What matters is that this article uses "men" and "women", so do the underlying MEDRS, and the titles that summarize that information need to as well. Maneesh (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually as I said above, the underlying MEDRS use male/female. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Each one I've spot checked uses man/men/male(s) and woman/women/female(s) synonymously. Which ones did you find that only used "male" and "female"? Maneesh (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

In the current "Women" section, the following sources use male/female 10, 28-31, 35, 42, 43, 45. In the current "Men" section, the following sources use male/female 25, 26, 30, 35, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 54, 58, 59, 60, 61. I was unable to access the texts to sources 33, 34, 38, 40, 55, 56, 57 due to a mixture of dead URLs, or being unable to quickly find a copy of the relevant paper/chapter. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Spot checking it seems that, as I've already said, at least some (I suspect most) of those RS use "men" synonymously with "male" and "woman" synonymously with "female". E.g.: 28: "Estimated new cases and deaths from breast cancer (men only) in the United States in 2021:[1] New cases: 2,650. Deaths: 530. Male breast cancer is rare.[2] Fewer than 1% of all breast carcinomas occur in men.[3,4]". This current WP article uses "men" and "women" overwhelmingly. Maneesh (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, as silly as I feel doing this, this is a standard usage of those terms in English.Maneesh (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

It is not standard usage of those terms in English. At least not for about the last decade. Also you've cherry picked a single example. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if English is your first language? Go out and throw a rock and read the news, google news query for woman AND female. Denying that "woman" and "female" are used synonymously every day is absurd. I read a lot of research, I know these words are used synonymously all the time the way they are outside of research. Why you are trying to suggest that isn't true is more than a little puzzling. Maneesh (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, English is my first language. And like any living language, it evolves over time. Woman or man has not be synonymous with female or male for the better part of the last decade. Woman and man are gender related terms. Male and female are sex related terms. On an article titled "Sex differences in medicine" it is more accurate to use sex related terms than gender related terms. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I would say that while I agree with you that quibbling over using Male vs Men or Female vs Women in this article is dumb, and we should use the most inclusive language which makes clear these studies were almost exclusively conducted on AMAB/AFAB cis individuals. But also that your statement here "like any living language, it evolves over time: perhaps glosses over the fact that science (and especially scientific language) is slow to change. It lags behind the rest of society, for the sake of precision and convention. We should do our best in this article to portray the most modern language which does not remove that precision. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm just throwing rocks 45: "POTS is more frequent in women (female:male ratio, 4.5:1), and most cases occur between the ages...". You do realize it's an easy bet that almost all the cites you make use of the synonymous terms. How long do you think you can call this "cherry picking"?Maneesh (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't even need to bother opening the articles, 21 "Sex differences in pharmacokinetics predict adverse drug reactions in women", perhaps we should notify Biology of Sex Differences, since they are using decade old language in the titles of their 2020 articles. Maneesh (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Woman or man has not be synonymous with female or male for the better part of the last decade....you do realize that the google query is live and returns mainstream stories that are mere hours old, don't you? Maneesh (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I am very unimpressed with the constant goal post shifting. It makes it very hard to assume good faith. The discussion is on language MEDRS use, not what NEWSORG use. Likewise this shift from Please count the number of occurrences of "men" and "women" below each respective title out of the total number of points to Each one I've spot checked uses man/men/male(s) and woman/women/female(s) synonymously. is dishonest. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah so now that you can see that I'm not cherry picking and have falsified your claim about English you claim goalpost shifting and dishonesty. You really need to take a hard look at the RS in this article and read virtually any mainstream writing today to know that your original claim,Woman or man has not be synonymous with female or male for the better part of the last decade., is not just false but ridiculous. Likewise, your reverts don't make much sense. Maneesh (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

What exactly is being argued here? GoodDay (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Maneesh is playing a fairly elaborate shell game, as far as I can tell. Sideswipe9th is the gull, in this scenario. Newimpartial (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

You believe it is a shell game to show the plainly visible examples of man/male and woman/female being used synonymously? In line with the strange claims I've sen you make in these related discussions. Maneesh (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Please see my more elaborate explanation below. Newimpartial (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This article (virtually each and every line), the underlying MEDRS and everyday English use man/male, woman/female synonymously. Newimpartial is in denial of these facts and has prevented the section titles (EDIT: I should say introductory sentences...as the titles already say "Man" and "Woman" before my edits) from reflecting the content of the article. Maneesh (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I've been on this planet for quite a few decades. An adult human male, is called a man & an adult human female, is called a woman. So, what's the dispute? GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

And these terms have contextually-specific meanings. Anyone who thinks any of these terms always means the same thing has not made very good use of their time on the planet, IMO. As far as my reverts, I am not preventing anything except POV editing without Talk page consensus. ONUS and BRD both back my reverts. Newimpartial (talk) 01:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay yep, you can see the denial of that plain language and obvious truth here. The article uses "Man" and "Woman" everywhere, the revert is happening on sentences in the intros and being justified by claims that deny the plain knowledge you've just recited. Maneesh (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Ya'll can figure it out for yourselves. This already has become (looking at the edit-spats) one of the lamest disputes, in this projects 20+ year history. GoodDay (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that provocative insight GoodDay... Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Whatever. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

FWIW: the articles Man & Woman open with "adult male human" & "adult female human". Hope that helps. GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, GoodDay: recent, reliable sources use "man" and "male human" in the sense of sex assignment, or gender identity, or without specifying (or even distinguishing) which one is meant. Context is key (and the same is true of "woman" and "female human"). Maneesh's POV approach, to shoehorn in edits as though "man" always meant "assigned male at birth" (and in turn, in his unsubstantiated opinion, meaning in all instances XY or YY chromosomes as well) is, as I stated earlier essentially a shell game. Don't be a mug. Newimpartial (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a cup full of beer. GoodDay (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I saw this comment at WP:AE first, and responded (somewhat mirthlessly) here. AE does not bring out my gaiest humour. Newimpartial (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Contrary to some claims above, it is still the norm in WP:MEDRS to simply use "women" to refer to adult humans of the female sex. Anyone is free to confirm this by opening Google Scholar, searching for "only in women" or "pregnant women", in quotes, and selecting "since 2021". We do not and should not engage in alienesque writing and random shout-outs to gender identity, as the medical sources themselves do not do this. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, what you are doing here (not entirely well, but with seemingly good intentions) is appealing to context to decide the usage of "men" and "women", etc. This is the correct procedure, although the way you are doing it leaves out important nuances in "women's health" communication over the last few years.

However, my point is that your approach here is the diametrical opposite to the rationale behind Maneesh's edits as expressed in this discussion: he is denying the relevance of context and playing a shell game with denotation, as I noted above. Newimpartial (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Your best route is to open up an RFC on the matter-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

That would be a waste of time because there is already an explicit community-wide consensus on that from the WP:Village Pump: "the terminology in articles, especially medical articles, is dependent upon the support of reliable sources and it is expected that editors would use the same terminology presented in said sources." And even if there wasn't, WP:STICKTOSOURCE and WP:NOR are clear. We simply use the terminology that the experts writing the MEDRS do. Plus, Wikipedia is not for advocacy about how sex-differences writing is done. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

And that means that the question needs to be decided based on actual sources. Where sources support, for example, specific language related to transgender hetb, then that would be the relevant STICKTOSOURCE, NOR language in those cases. Newimpartial (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but that is not nearly as common as you seem to think. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you know what I'm thinking - after all, I'm wearing my chic tinfoil beret. Newimpartial (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, that discussion was closed as no consensus (This proposal is clearly lacking consensus for implementing a bright-line rule.) and therefore does not impose any restrictions one way or the other - if you want to impose a bright-line rule in the other direction, you need an affirmative consensus doing so and not just a closure rejecting a bright-line rule in the other direction. As the closer noted, there are multiple competing policies and values that have to be balanced and considered on a case-by-case basis. It is specifically not a community-wide consensus - a no-consensus outcome it the opposite of that. --Aquillion (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Lacking a consensus for the new rule being proposed is not the same as "no consensus", especially when it specifically says that the consensus is that it is expected that editors would use the same terminology presented in said sources - which of course is just standard WP:STICKTOSOURCE, WP:V, and WP:NPOV policies. There is no policy grounds for purging wording that is routinely used in WP:MEDRS, and doing so is against the aforementioned policies as well as WP:NOTADVOCACY. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but you were presenting it as if this was some sort of settled issue; obviously that RFC didn't settle or change anything, it just (as you said) established that standard policies apply. That leaves us in the normal situation of deciding, on a case by case basis, what the best sources are, how to reconcile disagreements between them, what to do with (and how to weigh) sources that place differing degrees of focus on different aspects, and so on. That's obviously not the simple straightforward conclusion you think it is if it's consumed this much text from veteran editors for this long, so the right approach (rather than waste even more time going in circles and risk rising even more bad blood) is to hammer it out with at least a local RFC. If you actually believe, before or after that, that a sweeping global consensus exists or could be formed to override that, you could seek that as well, but I'm not seeing it yet and I'm fairly skeptical myself. --Aquillion (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It showed how those policies apply. 'Resolving disagreements between sources' does not mean 'pick whatever sources I want and fight to use the wording from those', it means following WP:DUE in how sources discuss sex differences. That doesn't change just because a small clique of gender-identity-focused editors followed each other over from WP:AE and are engaging in WP:LOCALCONSENSUS behavior. Crossroads ^-talk- 13:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I love how you are apparently including Nableezy, who expressed sympathy for Maneesh's "scientism" at AE, among your small clique of gender-identity-focused editors - and the main recent contributor to this section was only notified of the AE after contributing here. Maybe, check your privilege ungrounded assertions, in terms of their veracity, before posting angry. Newimpartial (talk) 13:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Can we all at least agree that "gender" has very little, if any, relevance to this article about biological sex? And stop talking about "gender-identity" controversies?

This is not an article about gender. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

DUE doesn't really apply to terminology, it applies to content. We regularly use reductionist and simple terms in articles which reduce the complexity present in the literature. That's SUMMARY, not SYNTH. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

"the terminology in articles, especially medical articles, is dependent upon the support of reliable sources and it is expected that editors would use the same terminology presented in said sources" If this were taken to its logical extent, then we would have a wiki full of extremely dense medical articles using obscure and ridiculously complex terms, making it unreadable for the lay public. The point of an encyclopedia is to SUMMARIZE content and make it understandable, while losing as little complexity as possible in the process. We are not creating facsimiles. We are creating summaries. That requires a reduction in the complexity of language, and sometimes, using simpler collapsed terminology which, generally speaking captures the same concepts. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• I would agree that an RFC is the best route; there is no community consensus on this topic and it therefore must be decided on a per-article basis. This discussion is likely to go in circles otherwise. --Aquillion (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  Yes I would support a brief and succinctly worded RfC as well. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You might have a point on MEDRS using "man" or "woman" except for the fact that those words do depend on context, and sources generally dont say in which way they are using it. Pretending that "man" or "woman" can only mean genetic sex is silly, they very obviously can refer to gender identities. If you are saying that the terms "man" and "woman" on this page refer to genetic sex and include any "assigned male at birth" or "assigned female at birth" respectively then that needs to be clear. I dont have an opinion on which way to do this is best, but I think it silly to pretend that the phrasing in men or in women is not ambiguous as to who exactly is covered. nableezy - 17:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Consider familiarizing yourself with this important research area. How do you think articles in the "Journal of Sex Differences" are using the terms men and women? I happened to read this highly cited (2k+) review, Sex differences in immune responses recently where "men" and "women" are used throughout (along with "male" and "female"). Look at the NIH. Contrived phrases like AMAB would not make sense here, virilized 46,XX CAH can be "assigned male at birth" (though consensus is that they should not be). Would all the sex differences in, say, that review I just showed you make sense if you WP:SYNTH replaced the use of "man"/"male" with "assigned male at birth"? This here is a very highly cited review on the critically important topic of sex differences COVID-19 disease outcomes. Do you see the synonymous use man/male woman/female throughout? Do you see any uses of "AFAB" or "AMAB"? Do you see any sort of suggestion that "man" and "women" are ambiguous in these sources? Do you see any use of the refined term "genetic sex" in these sources? Do you think that all these examples might just be representative of all of MEDRS? Maneesh (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Re Do you think that all these examples might just be representative of all of MEDRS? Why on earth would someone look at your hand-picked examples and reach that conclusion? On the face of it, that seems wildly improbable. Newimpartial (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

If anyone is so unfamiliar with MEDRS that they might think that the above observations are a result of sampling: pick your favorite disease and look for highly cited reviews on sex differences: cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart disease. Check all the same things I asked to be check above, I didn't in picking these reviews but I am read enough to know that I don't need to. Go ahead and pick some yourself. Maneesh (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The idea that you think AFAB or AMAB are contrived terms indicates you are not familiar with transgender medical literature. The reason men and women are unambiguous in your sources is (e.g. second nature article) that some of them exclude intersex and transgender individuals from the study, others (first nature article) explicitly disclose they are not studying gender and only sex, making the terms less ambiguous. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

they are not studying gender and only sex, making the terms less ambiguous What is the title of the article this talk page is associated with? Maneesh (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Why exactly are you opposed to clarifying the usage here is specific to sex? nableezy - 22:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no problem in clarifying in his article that there are two sex categories (male/female) and that (man/woman) is generally used by MEDRS synonymously throughout. Why are you trying to misrepresent what the studies say and alter the clearly consensus conventions they write in? Most sex difference studies in humans talk about men and women, that's just the way it is. I've already shown you the problem with contrived AMAB style language above, it shouldn't be a surprise to you that serious studies avoid this language. Why do you think you know better than the obvious conventions of MEDRS? Maneesh (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not that I know better, it is that Wikipedia is not a medical journal, it's an encyclopedia. And that means that our language usage is going to reflect more than just what medical sources use, and when the wording found in those kind of sources are ambiguous when applied to the type of source we are then we should clarify that. nableezy - 02:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

What is wrong with MEDRS sources like this methodological paper, this pharmacology review article or this 2016 piece? Colour me confused. Newimpartial (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Look at your Nature article. Look where it says Intersex and transgender individuals were not represented in this study. See how that clarifies what it is including in "men" and "women". We need to have that type of clarity. And not ignore the fairly obvious fact that it is indeed ambiguous to say "men" or "women". nableezy - 18:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

What proportion of RS do you believe provide this disclaimer? What impact does that have on the conclusions on sex differences? EDIT: Also "not represented" does not imply "not included" (they've used that phrase carefully here, and understandably so). Maneesh (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

For context, here's the sentence and the one prior to it. This patient group, cohort A, consisted of 39 patients (17 male and 22 female). Intersex and transgender individuals were not represented in this study. In this context, it is absolutely clear that "not represented" is synonymous with "not included". In a study titled "Sex differences in immune responses that underlie COVID-19 disease outcomes" not including trans and intersex individuals makes sense, as it could potentially skew the results. Why? Some intersex conditions, like Klinefelter and Turner syndromes have a increased rates of autoimmune conditions and immunodeficiencies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I dont think it really matters the proportion, I dont think this is a due weight issue. This is a clarity issue. Do you actually believe that man and woman cannot refer to genders and not strictly sex? If you do not think that, why oppose clarifying what the usage refers to here? nableezy - 19:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

It is a due weight issue; why would it make sense to write in the convention of a small area when all of sex differences (and beyond) in MEDRS writes differently? If anyone believes that "not represented" == "not included", You should have no trouble quoting exclusion procedure/criteria in the study. The claims about Klinefelter are embarrassingly uninformed, many subsets of men and women have heightened rates of autoimmunity. Klinefelter *males* are *males*. Many words have contextually different meanings that doesn't mean that they aren't used in specific meanings. It's quite clear that male/men/man and female/women/woman are used synonymously (not a surprise if you look at man and woman). I can link to highly cited studies across any disease area all day that all do the same thing because that is how essentially all of MEDRS is written; you don't seem to be familiar with this fact. Maneesh (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Aside from your misreading of Man and Woman as if they use the terms "male" and "female" always in the sense you attribute to the MEDRS (they clearly don't): Maneesh, do you actually believe that all of sex differences (and beyond) in MEDRS writes differently? If so, what is the evidence for your belief? Are you under the misapprehension, for example, that studies across any disease area stands in adequately for the domain of MEDRS? Because that ain't so, and your claim seems pretty ridiculous, given the topics (including topics related to gender) on which MEDRS sources exist. Newimpartial (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Re Klinefelter, no. They are intersex. Their gender identity is a separate discussion and a distraction.

As for the Nature paper's exclusion criteria, there were multiple exclusionary criteria of which transgender and intersex were explicitly one. I would happily quote the others here, but they aren't at all relevant to this discussion. So no Gish gallop for you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to make it clear I sent a communication to the authors of the Nature paper on Pubpeer where they clarified that no determination of intersex or transgender status was done on their samples/participants. Editors with merely a little experience in clinical science would understand how it would be obscenely impractical to define exclusion criteria and meaningfully verify. There is no evidence of any attempt to do that in the paper as was evident from the beginning. All this being a ridiculous side quest to the basic point that men/males and women/females are used synonymously throughout MEDRS as a rule. Be very wary of editors who display confidence in their interpretations without any demonstration of expertise. Maneesh (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

You clearly do not have the ability to interpret such scientific work correctly. People like Klinefelter males are not excluded from that study, you can't pull any evidence that they were and mere familiarity with clinical science would let you know why. It's clear you have no intent on learning any basics. "Not represented" means something very different than "not included"; what a shame if editors with such embarrassing interpretation skills are not corrected here. Maneesh (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The insistence that Kleinfelter males are not males is a form of scientific illiteracy. Maneesh (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a guy who has studied sex differences and, in particular, Klinefelters in an academic medical setting. In the setting of genetic differences of infectious disease response.

Klinefelter "males" are not strictly "males" for the sake of academic study. For our purposes, they are indeed on the "intersex" spectrum. They are excluded from most clinical trials for that very reason, because the variations in hormone expression they have affect their physiology. [3] [4]

However, it is also true that members of the Klinefelter/XXY community do not usually consider themselves "intersex" in the modern meaning of that term. [5] This contradiction is evident here. To square this, on Wikipedia, we go with academic definitions when discussing studies and science etc. And then we go with societal RS-supported definitions when discussing anthropology and culture and so on. In this article, it would be appropriate to include Klinefelter individuals as "intersex" for that reason. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you did very deep "academic study". I've already linked to 100s of papers that use "Klinefleter male". You'll notice "intersex' is generally absent in clinical work on Klinefelter males. You'll find 1000s with "XXY males". You don't have much expertise here, it is obvious. None of your reasoning makes much sense. Maneesh (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

On wikipedia, we operate via consensus. Not via personal attacks. Linking to older studies which were written and published before more recent academic consensus statements is not very useful in this discussion. We also use terms like "internally male" and "externally male" with some intersex patient cases, but that does not make those patients "male," strictly speaking. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You have fictitious notions of intersex and Klinefleter. Your claim about clinical trials is ficticous, we don't usually karyotype for clinical trials; many men who are Klinefleter's don't know that they are since presentation is "often subclinical". You have no expertise here. Maneesh (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You've also misrepresented the links, that's a plain google scholar queries for those terms, how many do you count are form 2021? Maneesh (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

See, that is an indiscriminate smattering of publications, not at all useful for assessing how a field uses these terms. In comparison, I used the professional/paid versions of UpToDate and Trip, which will give us professional body guidelines, which MEDRS values highest: UpToDate - Society guideline links: Differences of sex development and Trip - Guidelines on "Intersex" terminology. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Stunning. You think that showing you *thousands* of scholarly publications with who knows how many cites all the way up to 2021 is "indiscriminate"? Have you read WP:MEDRS: Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies.....do you believe that those sources somehow outweigh an arbitrary review I could find (2018, 138 cites) that states that Kleinfelter males are males? First sentence in the body: "Klinefelter syndrome (KS), 47,XXY, occurs in 150 per 100,000 live born males (1). No universal agreement exists in the scientific community on the exact definition of KS, but in addition to possessing one or more extra X chromosomes, KS males typically exhibit phenotypical traits that include hypergonadotropic hypogonadism, testosterone deficiency, and infertility (2)." Has something happened since 2018 that has made KS males not males? EDIT: Also count how many instances of "intersex" you find in the body of this review. Maneesh (talk) 05:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Whatever changed must've been past 2020 since this 2020 review titled Testosterone treatment in male patients with Klinefelter syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis, with 20 cites already. Again, count the number of instances of "intersex". Maneesh (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Some users have taken offense to my assessment of Shibbolethink's claims about Kleinfelters ("males" are not strictly "males"), I cannot stress how factious and easily falsified they are. It is remarkable that saying "transwomen are males" is being considered banworthy, yet users can claim easily falsifiable fictions like Kleinfelters "males" are not strictly "males" without consequence. Maneesh (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I actually don't think anyone is saying that saying "transwomen are males" is banworthy. I said it below as well. Biologically speaking, Transwomen are assigned male at birth. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Well it's being treated as banworthy at AE, with "transwomen" being called a transphobic dog whistle, so you may want to clarify your comments there. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I made only comments regarding Maneesh's tone and battlegrounding. I did not describe anything about use of the term "transwomen." And very intentionally did NOT go into depth about the rest of that extremely long complaint. Which is frankly too long for anyone to read. There's a reason for word limits. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

We don't actually need a karyotype to diagnose Klinefelter's (adult males are usually presumptively diagnosed, and only karyotyped if they wish to get a truly "definitive" answer or if they want to seek fertility treatments which would be harmful to their health). I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was suggesting anyone was doing karyotypes in clinical trials (although such studies have been done). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you for real? "Chromosome analysis. Also called karyotype analysis, this test is used to confirm a diagnosis of Klinefelter syndrome" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maneesh (talk • contribs) 01:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Yep. [6] Clinical diagnosis has a pretty good true positive rate, but unfortunately, since many KS individuals are phenotypically varied and subtle, there is a high chance of false negative. Karyotype is sufficient, but not necessary. It often "confirms" a clinical diagnosis. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Even in your own source "The diagnosis of a male with KS rests on clinical appearance coupled with a karyotype of 47,XXY or mosaics thereof." There is no diagnosis without a karyotype. I am floored that you posses a medical degree and that you would diagnose Klinefelters without a karyotype. Maneesh (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the only actual standard that could ever be used for any clinical or research purpose. Unconfirmed diagnoses aren't generally the ones that are part of an encyclopedia. Maneesh (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Uncomfirmed (so-called "clinical", as opposed to "pathological") diagnoses are the rule, not the exception, in clinical medicine. A common misconception. [7] To be fair, most DSD/intersex condition diagnoses are pathological/laboratory-confirmed. Most Klinefelter diagnoses are laboratory-confirmed (via karyotype). But many made in adults outside of fertility clinics are made clinically. Karyotypes are quite expensive, on the order of $11,000 in the US. [8] So if it won't change management, the recommendation is to not karyotype. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Ha! I can see the naive google query you used to get that number. Never ordered one and look at the cost for a patient, huh? You are really something. Maneesh (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Patient-cost is not the only thing we consider when ordering tests. Cost to the healthcare system and to the public (often medicare/medicaid) is also very important. I usually reference the unadjusted not-yet-negotiated cost billed to insurance, even though it is often substantially reduced in the end. Because it puts in perspective how much hospitals believe they should charge for such tests. Karyotyping can probably range between $2k and $10k, with 11k being the absolute upper end for an undiagnosed anomaly that requires lots of further examination. (sometimes involving so-called "spectral karyotyping") — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Likewise, you have often referenced WP:MEDRS in this discussion. "Academic consensus statements" from "professional organizations" are held in very high regard by that guideline. So we should respect statements by organizations like the APA and AMA. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

This is again descending into madness. Please quote in your link where it says Klinefelter males are not males. Any prevalence estimate of Klinefelters is an estimate out of the set of males: "Klinefelter Syndrome (47, XXY) is a chromosomal variation in males...47, XXY (KS) is the most common human sex chromosome disorder and occurs in approximately 1 in 500-1,000 males.". I do not believe you did any serious work anywhere near this condition. Maneesh (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Any prevalence estimate of Klinefelters is an estimate out of the set of males. Yes, because most Klinefelter individuals are raised as "men" culturally-speaking, and are presumed male until they are diagnosed. And many of these individuals continue to identify as "men" thereafter. It does not mean the condition is not on the "intersex" spectrum. It is. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Nothing you say is supported by clinical science, you seem determined to be ignorant of it despite having links put in front of you that explain it clearly. "Intersex" does not preclude one from being a male or a female, almost all "intersex" conditions are sex specific and the overwhelming numer of people with intersex conditions are just male or female and the conditions have prevalence estimates out of males and females. How people are raised has nothing, absolutely nothing, do with these estimates which are done via objective tests like karyotypes. Maneesh (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

almost all "intersex" conditions are sex specific and the overwhelming numer of people with intersex conditions are just male or female and the conditions have prevalence estimates out of males and females The American Medical Association [9], The Global Disorders of Sexual Development (DSD) working group [10], the European COST expert consensus of Pediatric Endocrinologists, [11], the European Society for Pediatric Endocrinology [12], and the Intersex Society of North America [13] appear to disagree with you there.

There is also, importantly, a distinction between "chromosomal sex" and "sex," two terms which you may be collapsing here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You are very confused. Those organizations don't say what you think they say. Please improve your scientific literacy. Maneesh (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Maneesh you might want to check the user page of the editor you're arguing with, you might find it illuminating. Their academic publishing record is impressive. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not impressed that someone apparently some training could make such absurd claims here. Maneesh (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted to add here, I think when you say the overwhelming numer of people with intersex conditions are just male or female and the conditions have prevalence estimates out of males and females, you may just be misusing the academic terminology. Typically, the most accurate and up-to-date term for these persons, which is embraced by professional organizations is "chromosomally male" or "XY intersex", or conversely, at the other end of the spectrum, "chromosomally female" or "XX intersex." Example: [14] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You can't be for real. Medline as RS here? That is not consensus language *at all*. Go look up clinical papers, recent ones, that focus on these conditions and their prevalences. You own source that you provided makes it clear Klinefelter males are male. Here is some help to start looking at papers: [15] Maneesh (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Never said I was linking consensus (or RS) when I linked Medline, although Medline is an RS, albeit a tertiary not-preferred one. You'll see I'm very precise when I say I'm talking about a consensus versus when I am not. In this case, I said "example:" — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I suggested in the section prior that, as this is an article titled "Sex differences in medicine", we should consistently use male/female language throughout as that is unambiguously a sex related descriptor. Man/woman have contextually different meanings, and it isn't immediately clear whether or not it is being used as a sex descriptor or a gender descriptor in this article. The lead and causes sections for example use "male" and "female" throughout. The first instance of the words "men" or "women" is in the women subsection. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

as this is an article titled "Sex differences in medicine", we should consistently use male/female language throughout as that is unambiguously a sex related descriptor.

Yes, I agree with this and I think it is a relatively uncontroversial opinion. There is nothing gained by using "men" instead of "male" in an article about medical topics. Such terms are less precise. The fact that some authors use them interchangeably does not change their vague quality, and does not make them permissible for this article. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Based on your comment above, I was about to ask for clarification on that as I suck at reading between the lines. But you've already addressed the question here. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Just as a courtesy note encase anyone was unaware, Maneesh has put out a notice over on WikiProject Medicine. Although it is decidedly non-neutral and a misrepresentation of this discussion.Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

digression.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I would encourage you to remove this part of this comment: Although it is decidedly non-neutral and a misrepresentation of this discussion. That may be true, but it does not do anyone any better to continue that trend of non-neutrality here. Notices of other postings placed in the original discussion should also be neutrally worded, per WP:CANVAS. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC) Just to confirm, do you want me to strike that just here or over at WikiProject Medicine as well? How do you address a non-neutral notification potentially colouring the perspective of incoming editors in this sort of situation? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC) I would encourage you to strike it here, and just place a matter-of-fact neutral description of this discussion over at WT:MED instead of any indictments, etc. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC) Done here. And I've removed my reply over there and replaced it with the template. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC) Thanks, I'll go ahead and collapse this digression — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll open an RFC on whatever's being disputed. What's being disputed? GoodDay (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Please do not open any RfCs without reading the discussion above first. The last two/three times an RfC has been opened like this have been a disaster. RfCs need to be carefully thought out, they aren't something to just start on a whim.

Also I could be mistaken, but I suspect the RfC comments were for a wider consensus than something at this article level. @Aquillion: made the most recent contribution on this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Where would be a good place to open an RFC to settle whatever's being disputed, if it's also disputed on other articles. GoodDay (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to wait for Aquillion to reply here before I even make that suggestion, just encase I've completely misinterpreted what they've said. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

If, and it's still an if, I've interpreted what the other editor has said correctly, there might be a topic wide language issue that needs to be resolved. There was a prior RfC on this question that, despite one editor stating otherwise here, was closed as inconclusive back in 2019. Or I may have misread their comment, and the RfC suggestion might have been to break a single editor deadlock at a local article level. I'm not entirely sure which. Either way, I'd suggest waiting for clarification before starting anything. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

See [16]. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• My thoughts, in no particular order:

• I don't think a sweeping Wikipedia bright line on language use is likely to come from an RFC of this nature, at least not of the sort proposed below. (That was one of the specific conclusions of the previous RFC.) That's always going to vary in specific contexts depending on sourcing within that context. If people want a sweeping RFC, I would suggest something closer to the Race and Intelligence RFC, where we try and nail down the broad outlines of what views are generally notable, which are fringe, and so on, but even that is likely to be a hard ask.
• This disputed removal struck me as more concerning than the dispute over terminology, and seems like something that can more productively be pursued as a way forwards - that is, rather than worry about the subtle implications of terminology on trans issues, note them specifically in gensex medical articles in places where substantial MEDRS coverage of them exists (and it usually, in my experience, does - you can see how easy it was for me to find sources for that, and it would be trivial to find hundreds more, if not thousands. Ovarian cancer in transgender men has a lot written about it, much of it in medical journals.) This seems like a decent compromise in the sense that we can stick to the sources and cover things neutrally by simply expanding into what sources say about trans aspects specifically - when they say it, with weight appropriate to the sourcing. It does not have to be at massive length - that depends on the sourcing and context - but a sentence or two in the correct places isn't much when the sourcing tends to be fairly heavy. We can say "women" and then include properly-cited language with impeccable sourcing further down the article that makes the trans context clear with appropriate weight. This isn't likely to be a magical solution to everything (the lead is more difficult because weight requirements for that are harder, and it won't answer people who feel that the language is misleading in any context) but it is a good start with a firm foundation, and usually at least a single-sentence summary of what sources say about trans aspects of sex and gender related medical topics will be leadworthy anyway - again, this aspect really does have significant coverage. The edit summary of that removal implies it would be ridiculous for us to generally mention trans issues in such cases; it does not seem particularly ridiculous to devote a single sentence to that aspect, when literally thousands of sources mention it.
• So for an RFC like below, I would suggest an option along those lines - talk about men and women and males and females using the terminology in the best available sources, but (when appropriate, ie. when adequate sourcing exists) mention trans aspects related to those topics as well, in their own sentence(s) with their own sources.

The precise weight and structure is inevitably going to have to be determined on a case-by-case basis, but this is basically how we handle most comparable topics - trans aspects of these medical issues are, yes, a smaller subset of the larger medical science; but that is only smaller in a relative sense, they still have such overwhelming coverage that it seems difficult to argue for omitting them entirely. --Aquillion (talk) 08:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

that is, rather than worry about the subtle implications of terminology on trans issues, note them specifically in gensex medical articles in places where substantial MEDRS coverage of them exists Yes, I would agree. At least where such issues are WP:DUE. I would further state, though, that we can refer in general to Male and Female, and then note exceptions. Not that we should just not have conventions at all. These are articles about biological sex, after all. One would think that material strictly about gender, and not relating to biological sex, would be WP:UNDUE here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Ya'll would be better off concentrating on developing the proposed RFC. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The female reproductive system and "other genders"

This isn't an article about ovarian cancer. It is about the differences between the sexes. None of the sources you are citing are about sex differences. Gender identity is not relevant here. It would be incredibly impractical and yes, UNDUE to add disclaimers about trans people to every bit of sexual dimorphism text on this site. This one is likewise completely unnecessary. Yet you and another editor were edit warring to add it, in violation of WP:ONUS (which requires consensus to include text) and in the latter's case, misusing WP:BRD (it is the two of you who should be discussing rather than reverting, since that text had been gone for over a week, and the previous version was shorter too). We can simply mention the female reproductive system there without extra stuff about gender identity or how ovarian cancer presents in X subset of patients, etc. Crossroads ^-talk- 08:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, before you removed it, the disputed text had been in the article since February. Obviously compared to that a single week (with almost no intervening edits, and therefore no indication that it had any substantial scrutiny) is not enough to make something the WP:STATUSQUO. You boldly removed something, someone objected in a reasonably timely manner, and so on. But either way, the underlying dispute is more important. As far as that goes - and as several of those sources discuss - medical issues for trangender men are specifically affected by issues related to the intersection of their biological sex and their process in transition; this, clearly, is an important topic for sex differences in medicine, in that it is a relevant medical difference that concerns both their (biological) sex and the effect that their transition has on aspects of their body related to it. And, again, it is a single sentence, in the body, saying something unexceptional and as far as I can tell largely uncontroverisal, for which numerous high-quality sources exist; we are not talking about devoting an entire paragraph or section to it. (Well, not to it specifically, anyway - a section on how sex differences in medicine affect trans people specifically, especially as it relates to transitioning, might be reasonable, but that would require a lot more time and thought.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

That there are "high-quality sources" about trans men and ovarian cancer is totally irrelevant here. I'm sure there are similar sources about black women and female reproductive system cancer, about old vs. young women, poor women, etc. None of it has anything to do with sex differences, which is the topic of this article. Crossroads ^-talk- 08:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, this is a classic example of circular reasoning, of assuming the thing that needs to be decided. You are assuming that trans men are a subset of women, for medical purposes, and then arguing because that other subsets of women exist, that therefore none of these categories has any impact on the overall scope (and meaning) of "women" in the context of medicine. This strikes me as nonsensical but even if your conclusion were in agreement with the community, it does need some mechanism of community "ratification" since there are quite clearly multiple editors who disagree with you and only one, nearly topic-banned, editor who is promoting something like your position here (and that, very badly). Let actual sources and policies decide this one, not your opinions. Newimpartial (talk) 12:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

No, this an article about the sexes, not genders, and the material is under a heading named "Female". You are claiming that trans men are not, medically speaking, a subset of the female sex - despite somehow having a female reproductive system - such that they need to be mentioned as an exception in terms of sex differences. No MEDRS support that.

You are also ignoring the already existing community consensus that we do not need to avoid straightforward terminology like this, that the terminology in articles, especially medical articles, is dependent upon the support of reliable sources and it is expected that editors would use the same terminology presented in said sources. And the vast majority of those WP:MEDRS sources on sex differences do not mention trans men and "other genders". There is no getting around that simple fact. Crossroads ^-talk- 13:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Would you please stop mis-stating my position as something it is not. You are claiming that trans men are not, medically speaking, a subset of the female sex - no, I am not. I am saying that it may be necessary to specify when the category "female" includes trans men, when (as I have shown with MEDRS sources elsewhere) it includes trans women, and when (as with the discussion of "intersex" people on this page) it may be unclear who is included.

Mis-stating the positions of others (to put it politely) is a violation of WP:TPG and WP:CIVIL, but you do it again, and again, and again. Can you stop, or is this something that needs to go to a dramaboard? I, for one, am sick of your supposedly "civil" POV-pushing. Newimpartial (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Then your entire justification for this evaporates. That bullet point is an article about sex differences, under a heading using a word that is overwhelmingly used in MEDRS to be the name of a sex, and specifically names the female reproductive system, yet treats trans men as some sort of exception to all that. Again, the vast majority of WP:MEDRS sources on sex differences do not mention trans men and "other genders". There is no getting around that simple fact. What you are arguing for is therefore UNDUE, pure and simple. Crossroads ^-talk- 13:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you think I am the editor who made that diff? If you're making a socking accusation, it is an extremely oblique one, as well as being quite wrongheaded. Newimpartial (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It's what this subsection is about and you're defending it. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm the editor who originally added in the stuff about transgender men and ovarian cancer, and I agree with User:Crossroads's decision to remove it as it added undue weight to the gender when this article is supposed to be about sex. I'm sorry for causing all this discourse. Feralcateater000 (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

This "us" vs "them" mentality is part of why this discussion is so toxic. Stop it, both of you. No one is "defending" anything or "accusing" anyone of being a sock here. We are discussing how to make a wikipedia article. Any and all discussions of editor conduct are off topic here. I'm gonna start collapsing them. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, I most recently replied to your comment where you insisted that trans men are a subset of women in the same sense and with the same relevance to this article that black women are a subset of women. This assertion is, ahem, unproven and circular. My pointing that out is not a defense of the specific way the content about trans men and ovarian cancer has been included in the article; claiming that trans men are not, medically speaking, a subset of the female sex is not at all equivalent to my actual position. In this discussion, my position is that insisting on wikivoice assertions that "trans men are (medically) women" does not align with the mainstream position taken by MEDRS sources on trans health and represents, in fact, dogged POV investment on your part (and that of Maneesh, who really got this particular ball rolling). Newimpartial (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes I would agree with this comment by Newimpartial. It is more accurate (and supported by sources) to say trans men are, medically speaking, a subset of the female sex and trans men are a subset of the male gender — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Ya'll would be better off concentrating on developing the proposed RFC. The content discussions on this article have reached a stalemate. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your efforts at chess criticism are among the most productive recent contributions on this Talk page. #chesscriticismcriticism Newimpartial (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I think restructuring the article should probably take place first. To differentiate Sex vs gender differences — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft RfC on Sexual Dimorphism Terminology

For medical and scientific sex-related articles on Wikipedia (or "For this article"), which terms should be used for the sexual dimorphism of humans?
(Note: "sex-related articles" refers to any article primarily about the sex of humans (chromosomal, gonadal, phenotypic, e.g.: Sex differences in medicine, Sexual differentiation in humans, or Sex differences in human physiology)

(A) Males, Females, and Intersex (e.g. [17])

(B) Men, Women, and Intersex

(C) A or B interchangeably (e.g. [18])

(D) A or B (whichever a source appears to be referring to at any point in the text)

(E) These conventions should be article-specific (status quo)

(Edit at will, discuss draft below) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment - at a minimum, I think an option is needed that would very the terms by article, rather than for whichever a source appears to be referencing.

Also, I think the RfC needs some additional specification or discussion of what is meant by sex-related articles - I think participants in this Talk page discussion have a pretty good idea what is meant (whether we want to or not), but the RfC, if successfully launched, will attract participants who lack this context. Newimpartial (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion: The less options, the better the chance of a consensus. Perhaps this proposed RFC should be held at WP:MED, as this appears to be more a medical topic, rather then a gender/sex topic. GoodDay (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay @Newimpartial Feelings about latest draft? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Many options can lower the chances of a consensus. But, I'm ok with the draft. Will it be held at WP:MED? GoodDay (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think WP:MED is the place to hold this, though they should be notified when it starts. I'm not even sure you can hold an RfC on a WikiProject project page? Though if it is the right place, more editors should get eyes on it before launching. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It can be held at a WikiProject's talkpage. I've done several. GoodDay (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Does it need to be stated/clarified that option E is the current status quo per the previous no-consensus RfC on this? Or would that count as poisoning the well? Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Whatever the status-quo is, it should be an option. GoodDay (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

added — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

C is the status quo, not E. [19] Crossroads ^-talk- 13:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I really don't believe that to be an accurate statement of the status quo. I suppose it depends on the intended scope of the RfC, though: it might be true for a small enough subset of articles (it doesn't clearly apply to the status quo version of this one, for example). Newimpartial (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

This may be a misunderstanding of the point of this RfC. We are currently drafting it for a multi-wiki-article usage, not for just this article. So it wouldn't make sense to call C the status quo, when other wiki articles do it differently. If we later decide to make it just about this article, then yes, C would be the status quo. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Bad proposal. I can't believe what I'm seeing here. First off, no RfC done at one article can be made to apply to thousands. Secondly, does any editor deny that the vast majority of WP:MEDRS to this day, and in almost every case without mentioning exceptions like transgender or intersex conditions, injuries, or what have you, refers simply to "men" and "women"? For example, search Google Scholar for "only in women" or "pregnant women", in quotes, and selecting "since 2021": [20][21] Am I going to have to waste time plopping down dozens of specific sources to establish WP:DUE weight? Are editors really okay with making women invisible in medicine, in a sense? None of the sources vaguely gestured at above support this POV, WP:RGW crusade. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  AFAIK, the plan is to have it at the talkpage at WP:MEDS. GoodDay (talk) 06:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• If you think it's bad that people are suggesting this, and that the outcome is obvious, then you should welcome an RFC to settle it properly rather than the interminable sorts of discussions we had above. But I don't think that it's sufficient to just point to the results of searches like those; for one thing, usage can be context-sensitive (option D) which isn't going to be obvious from a broad search. It's particularly inappropriate to use a large number of sources that don't discuss a dispute at all to dismiss a significant (but smaller) number of sources that discuss it directly - the "your honor, look at all the people I didn't stab" defense, so to speak. There may also be solutions that don't rely on sweeping dictates about gender language, which I suspect are unlikely to reach consensus in either direction. We have to stick to the sources, but which sources are appropriate to introduce is important, and especially, to cut at the heart of the issue, whether trans aspects of gensex medical issues ought to be brought up in those contexts and, if so, how and using which sources, to what degree of weight, etc. --Aquillion (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

That stabbing analogy is way off. As I said above, it is not relevant just that sources on trans topics exist (though naturally there are many, many times more not about trans topics at all since they are a small minority). There are sources about poor, ethnic minority, older, etc. men and women, but none of that is necessarily relevant to the topic of sex differences. To take the existence of sources on trans people and say that all our material on sex differences has to be framed around how those few sources handle it is POV and WP:UNDUE. It would violate WP:NOTADVOCACY. Crossroads ^-talk- 09:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused as to how talking about trans health in this context would be advocacy, and I'd appreciate some clarification on that, Crossroads. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I would further say that talking about the existence of trans people is not advocacy. It is encyclopedic. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Point by point:

• no RfC done at one article can be made to apply to thousands - wasn't planning on it.
• does any editor deny that the vast majority of WP:MEDRS to this day, and in almost every case without mentioning exceptions like transgender or intersex conditions, injuries, or what have you, refers simply to "men" and "women"? Yes, I would deny this. The vast majority of primary research articles use these terms interchangeably, not caring much for which is used at any given time. A great many professional guidelines use these terms specifically, and with great care. MEDRS treats these two types of sources differently, and prefers guidelines.
• Are editors really okay with making women invisible in medicine, in a sense? This is a straw-man argument. Medicine is concerned with reconcilable differences, and their effects on the health of human beings. It is far easier to delineate studies based on phenotypic sex than it is to worry about gender. And until recently, it was common parlance to not really care about the distinction between the two. But that doesn't mean our articles should lose precision and readability.

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

MEDRS articles rely heavily on review articles, and their usage is the same as I described. What you are advocating for goes far beyond how academics write about these topics. Writing our articles to pretend as though being a woman has nothing to do with being female is privileging a tiny minority over the experience of the vast majority. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Writing our articles to pretend as though being a woman has nothing to do with being female is privileging a tiny minority over the experience of the vast majority

Hi, yeah, that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm saying we must describe them in the most accurate way possible, per the standards set out in MEDRS-privileged guidelines from professional organizations such as the academy of medicine (see page 176 [22])

Example: when discussing a review/study which did not exclude trans persons or non-binary persons, and collapsed them into their phenotypic gender, then we should either A) not include that in an article about sex differences, or B) put it in a section about gender differences. When such a study included these individuals in groups according to their chromosomal sex (or, more likely, did not include them at all), then we should put that in a section about sex differences, and discuss it as regarding biological sex. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

That page you linked is about use of the specific words "sex" and "gender". That same book's description starts by saying, It's obvious why only men develop prostate cancer and why only women get ovarian cancer. Interesting.

You seem to be saying that - regardless of how a source describes itself - we need to comb through it to examine how it accounted for trans people, and then classify it as sex or gender related accordingly. And that we need to throw out sources on sex differences from the topic if they didn't specifically say anything about this (despite the fact that a review likely leaves that to the articles it is reviewing, and a primary study likely would have rejected such a person without comment if they showed up, and why would a trans person participate in a medical study that clearly does not apply to them anyway?). That is WP:Original research, as well as completely impractical. It means throwing out most sources from being about sex. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I never said we should throw out such sources. We shouldn't be citing primary studies in the first place. If they aren't about sex, we should put them in a section about gender differences. many reviews are only studying cis-gendered non-intersex individuals. Those would be appropriate for a section on sex differences.

However, other reviews don't really care and are about men vs women, regardless of sex and regardless of any intersex conditions. Those would be more appropriate for a section on gender differences.

And combing through our sources and making sure they are talking about what we are using them to talk about isn't WP:OR, it's good wikipedia-ing. Interpreting them in a way that was not intended or described by secondary sources is WP:OR. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

And what if a review specifically about sex differences doesn't specify anything about "cis-gendered non-intersex individuals"? Where are you proposing to classify this? Crossroads ^-talk- 15:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Depends on what sorts of factors the review is discussing. Biological differences, per our high quality MEDRS guidelines, should be placed in a section about sex differences. Cultural influences in outcome would be placed in a section about gender. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, I don't think you've understood that for Crossroads, whether a source is MEDRS and whether it is PRIMARY or SECONDARY depends on whether or not it supports the argument he is making at the tkme; Wikipedia policies like WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS are the same way. That's just how WP works. Newimpartial (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I would encourage you to not use confrontational battleground language like this, as much as it may feel good, and whether or not it is accurate. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

In my view it is not a matter of "feeling good" but more a matter that all interlocutors ought to share the same consensus reality, to the extent possible. I don't think it is BATTLEGROUND to describe what is actually happening in the present discussion or to link it to other discussions on the same Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It just isn't necessarily helpful towards building a consensus. Just makes people angrier. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Nobody here is proposing to pretend as though being a woman has nothing to do with being female. Watch out; straw goats are highly inflammable. Newimpartial (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Can we change "Men, Women" to "Man, Woman" (or Male, Female to Males, Females) please? Tewdar (talk) 10:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Numerous WP:MEDRS, including that cited in this article, do not restrict themselves to "male"/"female". I see no reason to talk so oddly in articles when MEDRS do not. It's like saying that we can't say that humans are bipedal because some people have one or zero legs, and some can't walk because of this condition and that condition, etc. Crossroads ^-talk- 13:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Wow, @Crossroads it appears you may have completely misunderstood @Tewdar's point. They were asking for a better concordance of singular vs plural. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed I was, and thank you to whoever fixed it. Tewdar (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I was tired and didn't look closely. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Are we in agreement that the proposed RFC should take place at WP:MED's talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I would say yes, but hold off on it. Because I think the ensuing discussion on this page has made me change what I think the options should be. I imagine the same may be true for others — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll let ya'll work out what the options for the proposed RFC will be. There's no hurry. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Current claims about 'sex-related' in article are incorrect

Straightforward changes to correct the article from being plainly incorrect were reverted. Maneesh (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, for one, that edit is full of incorrect grammar. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Please do provide alternate text that corrects the currently incorrect claim about sex relatedness. Maneesh (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Also in the addition of Klinefelter syndrome was removed under males. This is a canonical sex specific (and sex related) disease, appropriate highly cited ref was provided with explicit quote, count results and cites for scholar queries Klinefelter syndrome "sex specific", Klinefelter males, XXY males. Maneesh (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear: after all the disruption they have already caused on the topic, Maneesh should not be opining about who are or who are not males, whether in article or Talk space. This comes as a variant of the WP:DENY principle applied to disruptive editors. Newimpartial (talk)

DENY does not apply to editors who are still in good standing. Unless and until sanctions are applied, he is within his rights. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

DENY is just an essay. I would guess that this, overall, is just an admonishment/recommendation, but I would agree with it. Some people don't realize that continuing to WP:BLUDGEON their point when lots of people disagree is actually counterproductive. It makes people less likely to support your position.... — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Who are the list of users that disagree with "Klinefelters is a sex-specific disease" and "sex-related" is not used correctly in this article? Determining that is the very point of this section. Maneesh (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Reverted per this discussion, which did not produce a clear consensus in favor of your POV on this issue. Newimpartial (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

That is a deep and simply uninformed thread that does not represent any sort of explicit consensus or lack of. I will make it explicit then in the way the last two straw polls have. Describing those views as a POV isn't accurate. Maneesh (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Maneesh, I think you may misunderstand my position on this. I agree that "Klinefelters is a sex-specific disease." I think it's on the intersex/DSD spectrum, but decidedly to one end of that spectrum. It's prevalent only in XX(+)Y individuals, many of whom identify as men. However, not all do. There is also a range of phenotypes within Klinefelter's, with some much more pronounced than others, and many identifying as "intersex" in addition to other identities. There appears to be a generational divide on the attitude some members of the community have, with many younger Klinefelter individuals not identifying so strictly. [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

"Intersex" is not a clinical term, you don't find the word occurring in many high quality focused MEDRS on the topic. Your links are not high quality, first one is from a social science journal, not sure what the second one shows other than talks about GD in KS, next one is not MEDRS and says "Only the individual knows whether they feel male, female, neither or both regardless of how they appear to others. This applies to XXY people too. Most are male, a few are female and others are neither – or both.". The next one is some sort of PR on a letter-to-the-editor that begins the sentence "A common condition affecting males", the next link is just that letter. These links have absolutely no weight against highly cited MEDRS on KS. Many of your claims about "identification" may or may not be true (the same way it is for the rest of us). I'm glad you believe it is sex specific, which sex do you think it is specific to? Maneesh (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I find this comment combative and unnecessarily so, especially with regards to distrusting a source simply because it comes from the social sciences. I am not intending to put any of these citations in this article, to support any medical claims. So it does not matter whether or not they are MEDRS. A MEDRS source is only more valuable when discussing medical or health claims, of which this is neither. At this point, I find discourse with you to be unfruitful and unproductive. Feel free to respond, I will not. I hope you find what you're looking for on Wikipedia, and that it does not need to involve me in any way. Good luck, have a nice day. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I will also make it my last reply with that there is precisely nothing "combative" about my critical assessment of the links you presented. Maneesh (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Why is how they "identify" relevant here? Why can we not state what sex it is specific to? Crossroads ^-talk- 22:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't bring up identity, except that Maneesh has, several times, said "men" in reference to people with Klinefelter's. That is the original reason to bring it up at all. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

"Men" doesn't necessarily refer to an identity, it is generally used synonymously with "male". Lots of MEDRS uses "Klinefelter men". Maneesh (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

What was the stable version, before all the commotion? GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

[28] Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Lede also uses "sex related" in "sex-related diseases, which are diseases that are more common to one sex" yet cite has no occurrence of "sex-related" because that isn't the way "sex-related disease" is used. It is generally suffixed with factors/burden/differences etc. Maneesh (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Examples of "sex-related disease" used in the other sense. Maneesh (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

see WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY and WP:NOTOR. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

No idea how those are relevant. "Sex-related disease" is just not the correct term here. Again, the citation doesn't use it. I can find one case where it seems to be used that way, Most sources suffix with something reasonable (factors/differences/bias/burden etc.). The phrase "sex-related disease" is not used once in this top tier source. It is used with suffixes several times Maneesh (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)