I should note of the J'naii that it was not established, to the best of my knowledge, that J'naii had uniform sexual characteristics. It seems plausible, given the story line, that the J'naii may well have had biologically sexual differences but simply were not of a society that paid sexual differences any mind. The J'naii may have been philosophically androgynous rather than truly physically so, viewing sexual characteristics as no more remarkable or socially significant than we might today deem free vs. fixed earlobes.--Fenian 08:24, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Moved from "Talk:Male"Edit

Is this a useful entry? --Jim 22:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

VFD of MaleEdit

Delete. This is uncited, and really doesn't say anything. -- Renegade54 16:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved from "Talk:Female"Edit

Is this a useful entry? --Jim 22:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

At first I didn't think so, but now that I've revamped it, yeah. Definitly needs expansion, as well as a better opening sentence... - AJ Halliwell 23:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

On Andorian ReproductionEdit

in "Starfleet Academy", Pava Eknoor Aqaba explained that Andorians may be born from as few parents as one. As Andorians share a number of traits with Earth's insects, it is possible that their reproductive methods are similar to those of honeybees, with the particular number and genders of parents involved in a mating determining the possible genders of the resulting offspring. (i.e. a fertilized bee egg becomes female while an unfertilized egg remains male.)

Although that is non-canon, and thus, if we mentioned it, would be in a background note. ;) - Adm. Enzo Aquarius...I'm listening 20:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


Should this really begin "Sexes (or genders)" when there are in fact distinct differences between what defines one's sex and ones gender, and this article even goes on to mention these very differences? It seems inconsistent, at least, as well as simply factually inaccurate. --Jayunderscorezero 01:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole lead-in needs to be rewritten. The article is titled "gender" and should not start by describing "sexes" then moving on to it's actual subject. But I'm not sure how to best re-arrange the information. – Cleanse 10:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I overworked the article to more clearly divide sections into biological aspects (sex) and cultural aspects (gender). I suggest that the article be renamed into "Sex and Gender." And by the way, how does a discussion by of T'Pols sexuality suggest that "wisps" don't have gender? The conclusion does not logically follow from the premise. 22:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Species 8472Edit

This page says Species 8472 has five sexes, but the Species 8472 page says seven sexes. I don't know which is correct, so I didn't fix it. ~~alvastarr

The "Memorable Quotes" section on "Someone to Watch Over Me" says five, so I would assume that's correct, but can someone please double check? --Jayunderscorezero 20:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The Doctor says in "Someone" that Species 8472 has "as many as five sexes." Unless a later episode said they had seven, I would stick with five. --From Andoria with Love 18:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Background InformationEdit

First Female First officer. Wouldn't that be Majel Barrett from The Cage and The Menagerie I & II? Morder 01:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Not first to appear, but first featured main character. Number One would have been had the original TOS (w/ Pike) had taken off. --Alan 02:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Cool. I was going to edit it but wanted to get someone else's opinion first before. You worded it better than I would have. Thanks Morder 08:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"Transgendered" vs Transgendered vs Transgender Edit

Previously the page had "transgendered" species included without quotations. This may be confusing for those wishing to know the definition of the term, since it is correctly used as transgender when being used as a descriptor since it is both a noun and used as a descriptor. This makes the grammar of the page complicated since the in show usage is a grammatically incorrect "verb'd" noun "transgendered". Since the show incorrectly coins the term '"transgendered" species', quotations are the easiest way to differentiate between the in universe term and the real life term, without making the article more confusing by ignoring that that in universe term isn't used in the article.

To make it easy to understand, think of the similar grammatical issue of People of color vs "coloured people". While one is a noun used as a descriptor, the latter is "verbing" the noun and also giving the term a derogatory connotation. It is for the same reason that there is a derogatory connotation behind the term "transgendered" when compared to transgender people or transgender persons.

Of course star trek even mentioning anything to do with transgender issues was progressive, so its understandable how they made a small grammatical error back in the time bigotry was still considered the normal for transgender people. Still I feel for the sake of clearing confusion that the real term and the in universe term should be differentiated by quotations.

Also sources (admittedly not the most credible; unfortunately I am having a hard time finding a credible source that explains this grammatical rule and why it even matters in the first place):

--Permafry 42 (talk) 08:14, July 11, 2015 (UTC)

All this is really not relevant to this site though, because 1 from the confusing application of the term to a species rather then individuals it's pretty clear that whatever Data is talking about has little to nothing to do with the real world word, and 2 the info there is already sufficiently differentiated from real transgender info by the fact that this site documents science fiction and any idiot can see that. (also 3 what you did is far beyond our mandate) In the real world I'm sympathetic to the issue you raise, but here it's just not relevant. I'm going to revert the changes. And for what it's worth, I'm sorry but I really doubt that the nemesis writers wanted to make a progressive statement rather then a cheap joke. Star Trek as a whole has adressed social issues, but not thanks to the specific people that shaped this movie. -- Capricorn (talk) 18:12, July 11, 2015 (UTC)

Removed uncited Edit

Removed from the bgnotes. Uncited for almost a year and FWIW, the US isn't the only one as the note says:

The United States of America, like many other cultures, has a history believing women to be less suitable for certain functions. Star Trek: The Original Series is widely recognized for helping break this pattern by being the first show to portray women (of different races, no less) working alongside men in service, mainly aboard the USS Enterprise. An example of this is that, in an ultimately unused line of dialogue from the final revised draft script of TOS: "The Conscience of the King", Kirk stated, "On this ship they have the same duties and functions as the men. They compete equally... and get no special privileges. But they are still women."

-- Compvox (talk) 06:04, January 23, 2018 (UTC)

Also this:

who was heralded in the media as being

-- Compvox (talk) 06:17, January 23, 2018 (UTC)