This needs a little work as sexes and genders are not the same thing. Sex is the biological differences while gender is a social construct, genders can be the same as sexes but are not necessarly the same thing. This is why some cultures on earth have more then two genders but all have only two sexes.

On another note, there are a couple of episodes that have usful info that I cannot place off the top of my head; 1. Odo and the female changling chatting about how solids 'do it', 2. Harry getting hooked on an alien lady due to differences in constuct, 3. The Doc showing a slide show on how different species go about it. Jaf 21:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)Jaf

I read the appropriate Wikipedia entry on the difference between sex and gender -- however, i find a discussion of the semantics of the terms to be irrelevant to a reference about Star Trek -- we should use the terms as they were used in the filmed, canon, resources, and only expend a brief note in an italicized background section about what you mention above. After all, theyve never discussed this terminology on the show (and the Wikipedia entry begins with a note that even though it is grammatically controversial, the terms are still used as such).-- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
  • Coming from the school of the social scienes I have had the difference between sex and gender beat into my head from a young age and would go so far as to argue against how Wikipedia has it set up. For me equating the two seems rather absurd, sex is my reproductive organs and gender is my car/sport/job/thoughts on women/hair style/etc. However I recognize your point that most people are not trained in the difference and will not push it. Jaf 00:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)Jaf
The distinction could be noted in the article, and some of the terminology changed thusly, but I don't want to make it a central topic -- just to try and collect mentions from filmed Star Trek -- we should place the emphasis on tracking how each term was used in dialogue and writing on Trek, because i know they discussed the formation of gender and sex in "Where Silence Has Lease", among others. Basically the two terms describe opposite sides of the same coin, but we are choosing to put them in one article -- both the biological truth and the societal perception are discussed and described, because i don't think this warrant s a separate topic gender (unless someone else does, but I think its easier to have all the information in one article for cross referencing. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 01:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do have concerns about some assumptions in this article. The following sentence, for instance, appears to suggest that both heterosexual relationships and monogamous relationships are normative when such a generalization cannot even be made of Human societies today - nevermind of societies that might exist hundreds of years from now: "In many societies, the drive to procreate and resulting emotional attachments cause permanent or long-lasting monogamous relationships, stemming either from a biological or societal need to be bonded to a mate." Although the article does later explain, "This drive can also lead individuals to enter a relationship or mate for reasons of satisfaction or emotional fulfillment rather than procreation...," this article at least has that appearance of being hetero-relational in perspective and of having an uncritical embrace of drive theory. --Fenian 08:09, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)


Any particular reason that Roddenberry's draft notes on Earth as a nudist paradise merits inclusion, but the canon references to Deltan's don't? Seems especially appropriate under sexuality given that Orion's and pheromones are mentioned.Logan 5 19:19, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just haven't had a chance to add it yet -- feel free. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 19:33, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps another way of working this page would be to do the list by way of species which could then be viewed in the Table of contents. One could simply come in and pick to read about the sex infomation of Orions, Deltans or Risians from the list. For a species like the Vulcans there would be links to Pon farr and Plak tow. Jaf 22:15, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)Jaf

Separating topicsEdit

Considering the size, scope and number of topics that this article has, I think somehow "sex" could be better divided to separate articles based on how this page is divided into three subsections, so as to separate the "acts" from the "means". Let me think out loud and state the following:

  • At a glance I see references to gender ("the sexes"), which could easily facilitate male, female, multisexed and sexless, referenced in the first large subsection, as an article on its own. Some of this, if rewritten differently would also be somewhat duplicated in the next reference, especially in terms of "groups".
  • Another page could be created from the subsection we call "Sexuality" to sexual attraction, which could not only include references listed in that subsection, but as well be linked to unnatural forms of attaction, such as the love potion crystal, Elasian tears, and Zanthi fever.
  • Finally, biologicial reproduction ("the act of") could be the focal page to list sexual reproduction (a focal point for interspecific reproduction, and the various forms of "Alien reproduction" listed on this article), asexual reproduction, any other forms of biological reproduction not mentioned above, as well as any referenced form of nonbiological reproduction (such as referenced in "Emergence"). This article would also help facilitate the last two paragraphs under the "Sexuality" subsection.

Like I said, I was just thinking out loud here, because this page has gotten rather large, thanks in part to the vast amount of background information, and this article really does seem to blurr a lot of lines. --Alan del Beccio 17:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

So seperate this article into three different articles (gender, sexual attraction, and reproduction)? Yeah, I can see that. Sounds good to me. But what would we do with this page? Will it become a disambiguation page of sorts for gender, etc.? Or do we leave the opening paragraph alone and link the other pages under "see also"? That's basically my only question regarding this; other than that, I think it may be a good idea. --From Andoria with Love 01:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, considering the interests of he average internet user, this page could probably qualify for being the top-level for a Category:Sex and reproduction. This would allow easy tracking of the various sexual, asexual, hermaproditic and reproductive article topics out there. Not sure if the article should be a disambiguation, since there's probably still some "realworld" notes about how sex is used in Star Trek that could be used to preface the suggested subarticles. -- Captain M.K.B. 04:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
sex/temp -- Captain M.K.B.

From Talk:Dry spell (sex) Edit

Merge Edit

As I suggested on the failed deletion discussion, I think it would be more beneficial to have this description of a lack of sexual activity on the Sex page which currently has no prose at all and could certainly have a section on characters discussing whether they have gotten any or not(which is probably the only real prose there could be there anyway). This descriptive term could remain as a redirect. 31dot (talk) 01:40, March 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support. - Archduk3 05:03, March 9, 2015 (UTC)
Support. Tom (talk) 14:22, March 9, 2015 (UTC)

Merged. Tom (talk) 10:16, March 26, 2015 (UTC)

Pna-incomplete Edit

Right now this "article" is just a list. We need an introduction and at least a bit body of text. Tom (talk) 10:26, March 26, 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that every aspect of sex got its own page, leaving essentially no category of info that genuinly belongs here instead of at gender, sexuality, Sexual reproduction or any of a few other more specialized pages. Heck, even dry spell might have better been merged in sexuality. -- Capricorn (talk) 13:14, March 26, 2015 (UTC)