Talk:Human body

Non representative image ( --> light skinned, shaved genitals)

I checked, and this issue has been raised once or twice in the archives: the main image, while high quality in general (and an improvement to the previously used one I think), is not representative of human beings in general - both male and female have very light skin, plus their genitals are shaved. I guess there is no alternative in sight though ? That is a shame, I think :/ . Regards 134.3.246.179 (talk) 23:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Public hair is removed to show anatomy. The light skin is indeed non-representative, which is not ideal, but that's the best image we currently have. I've added more wording to the image caption to clarify this. If you can provide a better image, you are welcome to contribute it. -- The Anome (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I had the same thoughts at first when viewing the image, but the lack of pubic hair (and body hair in general, as both the male and female in the picture probably have less body hair than the average human being) does help to make it easier to see the anatomy. And I would say that using a model with a lighter skin tone also probably helps with that as well. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

how does all this work@Rreagan007 104.207.197.125 (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Why do we need to see the genitals clearly in this picture? We do not see for instance the anus at all, and I don't think we need to. There are many parts of the human body that are not shown in this article, since only some internal parts are shown. The article about the human reproductive system does have photos of (shaved) human genitalia. So there is every reason to show adult humans in their natural state in this article. If one thing is missing, in terms of showing the human body as one would any other animal, it's a photo of naked human children. 2001:4643:1480:0:30B6:EB00:1434:78D5 (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

One of them is white and one of them is East Asian. Out of a pool of two people, that's perfectly fine. It's an important issue to keep in mind, but let's not unnessarily focus on race here. Prinsgezinde (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Human systems

"Human systems" redirects here, but apparently it's also a concept in art and social sciences. Anyone know about this? IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

LGBTQ+, Gender Neutrality and Gender Diversity

Text and many images in this article (and thousands of other articles) blatantly assume that there are "only 2 genders" when in reality there are more than 2, because gender is not binary and hence genderqueer and non-binary people are real and normal humans.

Due to evolution, gene pools of not only humans but other organisms as well are very diverse. Though gender is never a choice, science behind LGBTQ+ communities is even more complicated then that. But greater the diversity, higher the chances for a successful biosphere.

Therefore, I propose that Wikipedia policies concerning neutrality (and gender-neutral language) be implemented effectively on the entire website. —CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ]  [ CONT ]} 13:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Could you be specific as to what you're talking about? The article doesn't mention the word "gender" once. Are you sure you aren't confusing "gender" with "sex"? And how do you propose the images in the article be improved? _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

This article in specific is only referring to biological sex, not gender, with it uses terms like "male" and "female". Rreagan007 (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Biology

Growth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.235.40 (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)