Talk:Sex differences in human physiology

No mention of permanent breasts is unacceptable

This is one of the most distinctive and obvious differences between male and female anatomy, and it is barely mentioned? Honestly, how can this be? It is a vital part on sexual dimorphism in our species and as a fellow user previously mentioned, humans are the only mammals with permanent breasts. Such a huge discussion around the reasons and consequences of this fact, goes by unnoticed? Impacts in societal relations (the possibility of cross-breastfeeding infants, for example, making it easier to feed them in case the mother is absent, and providing for a wider immunologic training), impacts in sexual division of labor (large breasts make some tasks and activities wildly more difficult), visual impacts in sexual recognition (you can tell a woman from very far away if the breasts are distinguishable, this is evolutionarily very relevant), impacts on health (breast cancer is predominantely female for example), the cultural impact of the large breasts imagery (think of the absurdity of Hooters: a business model based on large breasts), and so on and so on. Hell, it could be an article on its own, and it is absurd and shameful to brush off this subject as unimportant in this article.

Brain Size (2022)

It seems clear to me that the discussion of brain size should not even mention body size, just as discussions of the size (and maybe the power) of a computer's processor, memory or storage space would not mention the size of the outer shell in which those elements were housed. Research on the size of processors "relative to shell size" might be fascinating, but only as trivia, with no serious bearing on comparing the functioning of different computers. As I said (clumsily but accurately) in a doomed edit, "a bigger brain is a bigger brain". But having been rebuked once for vandalism I dare not nuke the section without support, so over to you, Wikifellows. Vidauty (talk) 09:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

You made this edit [1] repeatedly. Your analogy to computers is faulty since a larger case does not require more memory, a better processor, or more storage space, and computers don't have genders.

The article is discussing sexual dimorphism. There is a significant difference in average brain size between males and females, but most of that difference appears to be related to the larger average size of males. Thus it is indeed important to mention size (or more precisely, the brain-to-body-mass-ratio), just as it is when comparing brain sizes in species of different sizes. I've already removed the confusing and apparently unsourced material about height. What exactly is it you want to do? Meters (talk) 10:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I thought I had accepted my conviction for "vandalism" with as much good humour as I could muster, so I am puzzled by your dredging-up of my previous clumsy edits.

To your question, if you are right that body size is relevant then I want to do nothing. The question is whether you are right.

A larger animal body does not require more brain. So what? Computers have no "gender". So what? I see nothing wrong with my analogy, whose point is simply: "measure the payload not the package".

Having different average brain sizes is a difference. Having different average body sizes is a difference. Both noteworthy and with plausibly significant consequences. Likewise various other measurables. Why pick out these two variables and divide one by the other? Sorry but I still see no motive for it (other than an unscientific wish to downplay the significance of the brain size difference). What are the plausibly significant consequences of such a quotient?

Maybe I should add that I bring no presupposition about how important brain size is to "intelligence" or to anything else. For all I know, brain size may be only a minor factor in such matters, and (to pick a random suspect) estrogens may be far more important. But I am pretty sure that body size is not a negative factor (as the insistence on making this "adjustment" tends to imply). Vidauty (talk) 10:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

You are wrong. Larger species do require larger brains to control their bodies, as do larger individuals within a species. That's why elephants and large whales have huge brains compared to humans, and why brain-to-body-mass-ratio is considered rather than simply brain size.

I'm not going to discuss this further, Your comments here and on your talk page suggest that you are trolling, or at least not bothering to actually read and consider what others are writing. Again, What exactly is it you want to do? We had to link to WP:BRD and WP:EW three times before you actually noticed them on your talk page. We'll see what other editors have to say, and in the meantime the page stays as is.

And as for why I mentioned your previous edits, you are the one who brought them up. Meters (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind and gentle advice to "read and consider", I have now studied a little more.

I was wrong to assert that Brain Size as such is significant, but right that "Brain / Body" is not much better, and that the article is misleading when it implies that the latter is especially significant. I gather that counting (neurons etc) is better than weighing anything. But how to plug that insight into the section, I know not. Maybe the section should be renamed ("Brain Capacity"?) and reworked accordingly.

There were some other points to which I would have responded, but as you say you will not "discuss this further" (and since I hope that I have now moved the discussion to a more constructive place) I refrain. Vidauty (talk) 09:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

"Female anatomy" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Female anatomy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 4 § Female anatomy until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Deviation of lower arms in females is greater

When supinated the lower arms of Females have a greater deviation from the upper arm than do males. Presumably to avoid collision with wider hips when walking. Note sample photo. 122.107.197.131 (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Recent changes to lung and heart info

I reverted the recent changes to the lung and heart info since the information was unclear and contradictory. Every time a difference statistic is presented, it needs to be clear whether the difference is a controlled difference or an uncontrolled difference. Also using "at least" rather than "on average" is factually incorrect. Also use of "even if" and "even when" needlessly introduces ambiguity to the sentences. Just state the statistics plainly and clearly. Finally, two of the sentences about heart differences contradicted each other. One stated that the average difference was 25% "even if males and females are of the same height and size", and the other stated that the average difference was 31%. Finally, it is extremely dubious that the difference would be the same regardless of height and size being controlled. There should be two different figures, one controlled, the other not controlled. Nosferattus (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)