Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:59, 13 June 2013

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biology Mid‑importance Biology and sexual orientation is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Misplaced Pages. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Untitled

For 2004 August deletion debate over this page see Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Genetic basis for homosexuality

Pathology section removed

I removed the pathology as a cause section because it was based on a single non-medical primary source. I dug though the scientific literature, and I could not find much to back it up. -- Kim van der Linde 14:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I found this article which very briefly discusses the theory. Apparently it couldn't pass peer review. However it does turn up the next year in Project MUSE (search for Infectious Causation of Disease: An Evolutionary Perspective) which claims to be peer-reviewed, but I don't know if it qualifies as a reliable source. The theory doesn't seem to be very well-followed in the public sphere either, appearing about a decade ago and not having much discussion since. If nobody wants to reinstate this content, I suggest we remove the redirect under Pathogenic Theory of Homosexuality. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 05:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There are a few articles in the serious popular press about a decade ago. The idea is sometimes promoted in anti-gay circles. The Infectious Causation of Disease: An Evolutionary Perspective is the only article that might have been peer-reviewed, but more often symposium articles are accepted as is without peer-review. But even then, a concept put forward more than 10 years ago without any follow up is not notable in itself. We are not publishing every obsolete idea for many many topics, so I do not see a reason to add this topic. -- Kim van der Linde 16:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Bearman and Bruckner

Not in general, but specifically how they're used in this edit. I never remove content without a good reason so here are my explanations:

The content gives undue weight. This criticism has nothing to do with the credentials of Bearman and Bruckner. There are no direct quotes elsewhere in the article, so any added we would expect to be representative of general scientific consensus. This is not the case; general consensus has not yet ruled out uterine hormone influence or evolutionary theories. As evidenced by the article itself the figures of 6.7% and 5.3% are in contest with a number of other studies; they are just one drop in the ocean, so to speak.

The content is out of place. At this point in the article we have not mentioned uterine hormones or the birth order effect. The former is not explained in depth and the latter is only given a passing mention in the article, so it out of place to be providing technical criticism without providing our readers the means to understand what is being criticized. Placing a statement renouncing the theories before they are ever mentioned is a clear sign of a non-objective POV.

Lastly, the figures themselves are wrong. I suspect You're referring to the paper's figures of 7.7% for male and 5.3% for female monozygotic twins, which then are incomplete without describing results from the other groups. Lastly calling this quote a "conclusion" is slightly misleading when it is an introductory statement, and does not necessarily provide the objective overview that a conclusion should.

Thanks for your time and concern. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 21:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Based on your comment, may I then suggest that we do not do a direct quote but instead paraphrase what they said because other points in the paragraph say this: Bailey and Pillard (1991) in a study of gay twins found that 52% of monozygotic (MZ) brothers and 22% of the dizygotic (DZ) twins were concordant for homosexuality.

As you can see this is a highly dated study (1991) which is given 28 words, but the Bearman and Bruckner's study is 2002. But they are only quoted to provide support to other positions other than their most important position. Historyprofrd (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with the study's findings being presented in a similar way to other studies listed. If you want to represent their other conclusions, my request is that they be given where topically useful, for example put their statement about birth order effects under (and, because it's criticism, at the end of) the section Birth order. Thanks for your cooperation. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 04:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I have done the summary and used 7.7 as you suggested. I found this article in the net: http://www.ivpress.com/title/ata/3429-tablea1.pdf / and this http://www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch10.pdf

Hope that is ok now. Historyprofrd (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Lede improvement

I reverted the lede to the following to accommodate Bearman and Bruckman's prestigious study:

Biology and sexual orientation is the subject of research into the role of biology in the development of human sexual orientation. No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, but various studies point to different, even conflicting positions, such as no genetic influence, or a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences, with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment

The former phrasing sounds like a violation of NOR and ignores Bearman and Bruckman.

Somebody, perhaps inadvertently, reverted my edit without due discussion. Historyprofrd (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not necessarily in defense of the previous wording, but your new wording seems potentially problematic on three counts:

• making a single study—however "prestigious"—the very first ref in the article, and basing the lede's wording on it, may constitute undue weight;
• singling out one position (no genetic influence) for mention might not be the most neutral wording;
• the conjunction "but" suggests that the rest of the sentence will stand in contrast with the first clause, which it really doesn't.

The article isn't Research into biology and sexual orientation; it's just Biology and sexual orientation. As such, it may well benefit by beginning with a very general overview (e.g., statements that the AAP journal citation will support) before singling out any one study. I could be wrong. (I have neither the time nor the inclination to involve myself deeply in the article at present, so please take the above as just a "fwiw" comment.) Rivertorch (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is a violation of WP:NOR. Did you mean NPOV? Regardless, I don't think Bearman & Brückman is very prestigious. It's now 10 years old and newer studies have found a mix of genetic and non-shared environmental influences. Bearman & Brückman were also criticized for their study, as among sociologists (note that they are not biologists) a "constructionist" view would support their conclusion. Bearman & Brückman found data similar to that of the Långström study, but while Långström concludes that both genetic and environmental influences are significant, Bearman & Brückman throw out all biological explanations in favor of a pure constructionist sociological explanation. The salient point here is that Bearman & Brückman is not very representative of recent twin studies and should not be presented in the lede as WP:UNDUE weight would be put upon it. Rkitko 15:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.

To Rivertorch: (1) we can move it to second or third, (2) as it is the present wording is given a ref to an article on Sexual Orientation and Adolescents which does not mention the supposed "general acceptance by scientists". The present wording contradicts the fact that there are important scientists who differ from the combination theory it gives, thus nullifying the general acceptance itself. (3) yes OK, we can remove the conjunction but.

To Rkitko, You are right that it is about NPOV because based on what I said above, the present wording of the lede gives undue weight to the "combination theory". Because it gives zero weight to a significant theory from scientists of Columbia and Yale and which the study of Bailey, Dunne and Martin (2000) somehow supports because of the 20% concordance in the male identical twins and 24% concordance for the female identical twins that they found. But it is also a violation of NOR, based on what I said in (2) to Rivertorch.

I think going by the suggestions of Rivertorch will help, so am proceeding to do them now. Historyprofrd (talk) 07:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand your questioning of the "general acceptance" wording, although I'm not sure that the existence of "important scientists who differ" negates the possibility of that a rough consensus may reasonably be claimed. In various fields, there are notable researchers whose published findings go against the grain. Those do need to be reported in our articles, but care should be taken to ensure that minority views are identified as such and not given equal prominence. I'm speaking in very general terms here, and probably not saying anything you don't already know. In any case, I consider the wording much improved now. Rivertorch (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Good to hear of your support, Rivertorch.

In general, since we are dealing with an ideologically charged issue here, I'd say that we ensure that any refs here are based on sources generally untainted by any ideological prejudice and have not been accused by reliable sources of having ideological motives. Historyprofrd (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Mintwi17 removed the "or no genetic influence" part of your addition. Following that, I tweaked the wording because only the general scientific belief (of course suggested by research) about what causes sexual orientation was left in the lead, and it's better not to make it look as though it's significantly disputed. I'll point Mintwi17 to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

While it is alright to mention that latter part elsewhere in the article (and that only if proper, direct, reliable sources are found), it is not proper to mention it at the top of the article right alongside the general scientific view. --Mintwi17 (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Failing link

The link in LeVay S (August 1991). "A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men" (PDF), which is source nr 31, doesn't link to the right page. Highollow (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the dead link, which probably was to an unauthorized copy of the entire report. The abstract remains linked. Rivertorch (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Causes of sexual orientation

Hey, everyone. Refer to the Talk:Sexual orientation#Causes of sexual orientation discussion for why I reverted these edits that were made to the lead. I started the discussion at the Sexual orientation talk page to keep the discussion, which concerns two other articles, in one place. Flyer22 (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

• Since this article is about Biology and sexual orientation, and environmental influences are not mentioned in the body, this edit is contrary to WP:LEAD and WP:WEIGHT. ( The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight).

• There is already article Environment and sexual orientation, which discusses environmental influences.

• If we want to inform our readers that there are other theories about sexual orientation, we can write in the lead something like: For environmental theories see Environment and sexual orientation.

• I have heard for many possible environmental factors, but this is the first time that I heard for "promotion of tolerance". Are we sure this is not some fringe theory? Are there other sources that mention "promotion of tolerance" as a factor?

• UPDATE: The quote from the book is misinterpreted, it discusses "gender identity and sexual orientation of children whose parent(s) is/are Lesbian or Gay" NOT sexual orientation in general.--В и к и T 09:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Environmental influences are mentioned in the body, just mostly not social ones...except for the "Exotic becomes erotic" theory since it includes a lot of social material because it's about how biology interacts with social aspects.

As for the IP, such as his misuse of sources, I (as others may have seen by now) have already addressed the IP about it. Besides his misuse of sources, he is problematic because he continues to edit war and refuses to discuss...except through edit summaries. Flyer22 (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the IP early on in the edit war because their addition was misrepresenting what the source said. It says that "much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation", not that "research generally suggests" that such influences are responsible for determining sexual orientation. I don't think it's appropriate for this article to avoid any mention of non-biological influences, any more than it's a good idea for Environment and sexual orientation to avoid mention of biological influences; not mentioning it removes context that is essential for allowing the reader to grasp the basics of the topic. Rivertorch (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, Rivertorch. Agree completely. And the IP has now added the text (that Wikiwind mentions above) to the Environment and sexual orientation article. Per above, it's still a misrepresentation. And I don't believe that commentary from one, or more than one, author should be in the lead anyway unless it's from an authoritative source (such as the American Psychological Association). As for this article, the Pediatrics source clearly means "social factors" by stating "environmental influences" since its use of "hormonal" already covers "uterine environment," but, like I stated in this edit summary, "we haven't specified what the source means by 'environmental ' because the source does not specify... I'll have to check the source that Pediatrics cites for all of what that source means by it." We also should probably go back to using "research suggests" instead of "research generally suggests" to more accurately reflect the Pediatrics source; again, I'll have to examine the source it cites for the information about genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. Flyer22 (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the IP's edit at Environment and sexual orientation as inappropriate for the lede and left a note on their talk page asking them to join this discussion. Rivertorch (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

as Rivertorch has stated, i only wish to mention that "environment" does not only mean biological influences. a non-scientist who reads this article may receive an inaccurate information because of the lack of clarification on the definition.

as for the book by Ellen Perrin that i've cited, it is referenced in the mentioned Pediatrics article -- in fact, if you read the Pediatric article, the "environmental influences" used in this Wiki page is actually from the Perrin's book.

also, i don't think the Perrin's book regarding socialization should be considered as a primary source. in her book, the quote is followed by a citation to "(Bailey et al., 1995)". thus, the quote is actually a secondary source of the primary source (Bailey). 76.88.105.180 (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone automatically thinks "biological factors" when they see "environmental influences" or "environmental factors." For example, you didn't and neither did Wikiwind. Instead, most people don't know or they forget that "environmental influences" can also mean biological factors. Yes, the Pediatrics source, in its ETIOLOGY AND PREVALENCE section, cites Perrin EC (Sexual Orientation in Child and Adolescent Health Care. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; 2002) for the "Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences." line, but it is better to use the Pediatrics source or a source like it when reporting this type of research. See WP:MEDRS. Per what Wikiwind stated above, you are also using an inappropriate page of the Perrin source for the information you've added. You have misrepresented the source because of that. Certainly, since the Pediatrics source cites Perrin, there is a page of the Perrin source that can accurately reflect the material you want added. If such a page is used, and since the Pediatrics source is citing Perrin for the "genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences" information, it is fine to clarify that by "environmental influences" we mean "social influences." Flyer22 (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I am thinking that it is best that we drop any mention about what research generally suggests about sexual orientation, since research on sexual orientation is inconclusive, like the major scientific organizations state. Scientists generally favor biological models for the cause of sexual orientation, but they generally believe that sexual orientation is formed by a complex interplay of biological and social factors. So I feel that we should attribute the "genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences" text to what scientists/researchers believe, which is also supported by the American Psychological Association source on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Flyer22, i did not misinterpret "environmental influences" because i have a scientific degree and well informed in this matter. neither did Wikiwind because he's a moderator and have read many articles in discussion. as mentioned, an average person may interpret "environmental" as some sort of chemical environment, i.e. prenatal hormonal environment. why is it so difficult to simply clarify it by adding social influence as you agree yourself?

regarding misrepresentation... fine, you can make the quote to apply specifically to those children brought up by gay/lesbian parents. however, you're walking on a thin ice because somehow in your mind those children under gay/lesbian parents are so different than other children under heterosexual parents, that they can be socially influenced, while other children are immune to social influences. obviously the author of the Pediatrics journal understands that the children are children, and what can influence one can influence other as equally.

YES! i agree with Flyer22 that we should use more scientifically accurate wording used by APA. the fact is that nobody knows what really causes sexual orientation. let the reader know this scientific fact first -- then, we can discuss these possible influences ranging from biological to social.76.88.105.180 (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Your first edit to the article as the IP you currently are was to specify that "environmental influences" means "social and cultural," so that is why I stated that you did not automatically think "biological factors" when you saw "environmental influences." It is also clear from above that Wikiwind was not referring biological factors when addressing environmental influences, which is why Wikiwind suggested the text you added be regulated to the Environment and sexual orientation article. We also don't have (official) moderators here; we have (among other things) administrators. And even if we did have (official) moderators, that makes no bit of difference about the moderator's knowledge on these matters. Wikiwind is also not an administrator. But it certainly appears that you are familiar with Wikiwind.

It's not difficult for me to clarify what environmental influences means by adding "social influences," but, like I stated, we should not clarify that if the source does not. Misplaced Pages follows WP:Verifiability. Just because we believe that the source means "social influences" does not mean that we should add it. But, again, if a page from the Perrin source clarifying that it means "social influences" by mentioning "environmental influences" while stating "combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences" is used, then there is no problem clarifying "social influences." And, no, I don't want to make the quote you used "apply specifically to those children brought up by gay/lesbian parents." There is no making it do that anyway, since it already does apply to that; the point was to make you see that you were misrepresenting the source. The text is not relevant to sexual orientation in general. And I did not state that we should use the American Psychological Association's wording; I stated that "we should attribute the 'genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences' text to what scientists/researchers believe, rather than what research suggests, and that's because research is inconclusive on what causes sexual orientation. Flyer22 (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

let's see how this wiki quotes the Pediatric source in terms of environment. "but research generally suggests that sexual orientation is a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors, with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment." the word "environmental factors" is followed by a comma that then states "the early uterine environment". how do you think the reader would interpret of the first "environment" -- social or uterine? however, if you read the Pediatric source, the environment is used as social, but never as uterine. here are some quotes from the Pediatircs:

"The overall goal in caring for youth who are or think they might be gay, lesbian, or bisexual is the same as for all youth: to promote normal adolescent development, social and emotional well-being, and physical health. If their environment is critical of their emerging sexual orientation, these adolescents may experience profound isolation and fear of discovery, which interferes with achieving developmental tasks of adolescence related to self-esteem, identity, and intimacy."

"OFFICE PRACTICE: ENSURE A SAFE AND SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT"

"Instead, the pediatrician should create a clinical environment in which clear messages are given that sensitive personal issues including sexual orientation can be discussed whenever the adolescent feels ready to do so."

again, the very Pediatric source always use the word "environment" in social context, and never uses it or even mentions uterine. nevertheless this wiki makes it sound as if the Pediatrics' "environment" means uterine. could you please fix this inaccuracy? 76.88.105.180 (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

can any admin respond how to address this issue please? if no admin responds, then i'd take it that you want me to try to edit it instead. we can make this article accurate by clarifying that environment can mean both social and biological. not mentioning social influence as a part of the environment would be a misrepresentation of the Pediatrics article. i can add another sentence with a new reference to clarify and support the definition.76.88.105.180 (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why you want an admin. Please be patient; there is no fire to put out, and the discussion is likely to be productive if we give it a chance. I'm not quite sure how best to proceed, but I'm going to leave a note at a relevant WikiProject, which I hope will bring more editors to the conversation. Rivertorch (talk) 05:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

IP, I'm sure that no one would initially interpret "environmental influences" or "environmental factors" to mean "uterine environment" all because the sentence went on to mention "uterine environment" when describing a complex interplay of genetics. Even after initially reading the line and then reading it again and again, I'm sure that most people would equate "environmental influences" to mean "social influences"...just like the Environment and sexual orientation article is mostly about social influences. Again, if people interpreting "environmental influences" as "uterine environment" was a high possibility, that would have been on your mind when you came to this article. Judging by your initial edit, it wasn't. You, like most of everyone else does, interpreted "environmental influences" to mean "social and cultural." You have broken up the sentence, so that's taken care of anyway.

The quotes you listed above have nothing to do with the "Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences." line. You quoted parts of the Pediatrics article that happen to use the word "environment"; at no point are those uses put in the context of environmental influences helping to determine sexual orientation. The first quote is about making sure that gay, lesbian, or bisexual youths live in a healthy environment. And "OFFICE PRACTICE: ENSURE A SAFE AND SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT" and "Clinical environment" quite clearly are not about environmental influences helping to determine sexual orientation. I don't understand how you continue to misinterpret and misrepresent sources the way that you do, but it's troubling. Not mentioning social influence "as a part of the environment" would not be a misrepresentation of the Pediatrics source because the Pediatrics source does not clarify what it, or rather Perrin, means by "environmental influences" when it states "Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences."

I will ask WP:MED to weigh in on this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Among other tweaks, I also tweaked your latest changes. Flyer22 (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Rivertorch and Flyer22, thank you very much for your continuous assistance. i am content with the current wordings, now that there is no confusion to what environment might mean.

if we're asking other people to weigh in, then maybe we should ask psychologists, as the subject is related more to psychology than medicine.

just an FYI - as mentioned, the issue was not because i would misinterpret the meaning of environment. it was because an average reader who is not familiar with the topic could have misinterpreted.

my point in bringing up those quotes from the Pediatrics source was to show that the source never used it in context of uterine environment. as you said, the Pediatrics does not clarify what it means -- which is why i tried to bring up the cited source, Perrin's book. in Perrin's book, it uses the environment to mean social: "Among the postulated environmental influences on gender role and sexual orientation are imitation, socialization, and promotion of tolerance." i understand that you feel this quote may not apply to sexual orientation in general because it is referring to children under gay/lesbian parent(s). nevertheless, considering this wiki page makes substantial references to homosexuality, i believe the quote from the book is relevant and is not misrepresented because it clearly connects environment to sexual orientation.

nonetheless, again i am content with the way it's written now. thank you for your time and patience.

76.88.105.180 (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome for the assistance, IP.

It's not easy to find psychologists, and generally any expert, on Misplaced Pages, as Misplaced Pages is mostly written by non-experts. I would have contacted WP:PSYCHOLOGY if that project were generally active; it generally isn't, and neither is WP:PSYCHIATRY or WP:NEUROSCIENCE. That means that the chances of getting help from those projects is significantly lower than getting help from WP:MED. Plus, a lot members of those projects are also WP:MED members. But I don't object to contacting those projects about this matter, considering that at least one person from any of them may come along to help at request.

We were not using the Pediatrics source to mean "uterine environment," though, IP. I know that you feel that it could be taken that way because of how the sentence went on to mention "uterine environment" when describing a complex interplay of genetics. But again, that's now taken care of by your splitting that information. Also, like I stated before, whether we use the page of Perrin's book that you used or not, we should not use that page for the topic of sexual orientation in general. Yes, Perrin was most likely talking about sexual orientation in general with that line, not solely about children of gay/lesbian parents, but an editor (Wikiwind) objected to using it in a general context and that objection suggests that the context of the line, given the page it is on, is not as clear as it should be. I told you that since the Pediatrics source cites Perrin, there is certainly a page of the Perrin source that can accurately reflect social influences being one of the theorized combinations that form sexual orientation (and likely termed "environmental influences"). One just needs to read the entire book and find that page or pages.

Also, an editor removed the text you added to the lead about a twins study. So I'm not sure if you'll still be content with the lead now. For what is appropriate to put in the lead, see WP:LEAD. Flyer22 (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

it's unfortunate that the twin study text has been removed. yes, without that text, i think we should clarify what "environmental" means. how about this? we could say, "environmental (biological and social) factors." and have the ref#1 point to the twin study. the twin study mentions that the influences are from genetic and environmental (biological and social). thus, these two refs are in sync with this lede, and by adding separate refs, we let the readers know which info came from where. 76.88.105.180 (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

My 2c. 1) Environment and sexual orientation should be merged back to this article. IIRC, that other article was created as a counter-argument to this one, and reality is that "Biology" and "Environment" are overlapping Venn diagrams. 2) The implication that Biology and Environment are opposing influences should be addressed by disambiguating "Heritable factors" from "Biology". 3) Most importantly, Environment should be discussed in terms of "Shared" and "Non-Shared" components, as it is, the false idea is transmitted that all environmental influences are of the shared type, and that is clearly very wrong. An informed exposition of non-shared environment would be very valuable, not only for addressing ignorant "genetic determinism" or "environmental determinism" readings. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

IP, I'm not sure what else to state to you about this. But you could be WP:BOLD and try out your suggestion, see if anyone will revert it. But being familiar with the editor who reverted you, I feel that he will likely revert your edit. I also feel that including "biological" in the parentheses would be redundant because it is already covered by "genetics" and "hormonal" (which are biological aspects). Further tweaks to the lead have been made by WP:MED member Biosthmors, though they don't address your concern, and I tweaked one part of those changes.

Interesting take, Pete.Hurd. What would you title the article if the merge were to happen? It doesn't seem that you would want to leave it titled Biology and sexual orientation. I'm not going to undertake the merging you propose because I know that the merge would be contested, and I'd therefore rather leave the merging to someone else. A discussion about it should be had first, however, and I would weigh in on a discussion about that. I also point out that we additionally have a Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Flyer22, ok thanks for your permission to try. i'll wait a few more hours for any input from other editors before trying. hopefully, this time the edit would stay because it will contain a reference to the twin study which coincides with the lede sentence. i think "biological" should be included because it carries more broader meaning than genetic and hormonal. for example, there is a theory where mother's immune system could have had an influence -- it would fall under biological, but not genetics or hormonal. 76.88.105.180 (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

In addition to Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation, there is also Fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation (and Handedness and sexual orientation). Good luck with it. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem, IP, though you didn't need my permission. I'm obviously fine with the way that the lead currently is. I moved the reference to end of the sentence, after the first reference, because the text looks cleaner that way. Good point about "biological" being broader than "genetics" and "hormonal"; I keep its broadness in mind when I use the word "genetics," remembering that it's not always synonymous with "biological" (even when I or others use them synonymously). The word "biological" beside "social" in parentheses can also be taken to mean that we are simply emphasizing "genetics" and "hormonal" while using "social" to emphasize that it's what we mean by "environmental" (though, as we know, "environmental" can mean more than just social). But, yeah, it's fine.

And, Pete.Hurd, soon after I posted my above reply (and before your reply to me), I had become aware of the fact that you already have experience with the Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation article and the others you listed above. Sorry for pointing you to something you already knew about, though the mention was for anyone reading this section. Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Pete.Hurd: The article Environment and sexual orientation should be merged with this one. As I made my last edit to the lede, I wasn't even aware of the other article. I still stand by my edit, but the overlap between the two articles causes a lot of redundancies. This is not a topic like global warming or cigarettes causing cancer, there is really no consensus between scientists, so the resulting article should truly attempt to be apolitical and simply outline the various theories. Having the major article on the origins of sexual orientation focus on biological factors, marginalizes the other factors.

Here's a suggestion: Use the APA quote as a thesis/outline for the entire new article:

What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation? There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

The APA doesn't give undue weight to biological factors, we shouldn't either.Ragazz (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

In regards to the Physiological dot-point "A study of 50 gay men found 23% had counterclockwise hair whorl, as opposed to 8% in the general population." Sorry to be a numbers nazi, but how can you get 23% from 50 people. This number would be 11.5 people. Either they have it or they don't. Please fix the figure to either 22% or 24%. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.4.188.206 (talk) 03:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing

(Coming from WPMED per the above request). The first thing I notice is that a rather large portion of this article is based on primary sources and mass-media reports, many of which are quite dated and would not meet wp:RS, let alone wp:MEDRS. This is conducive to accurately reflecting neither current scientific consensus nor ongoing scientific discussion. Fortunately, it is fairly simple (if a bit boring) to remedy by incremental steps. A sequential examination of each citation should include a check of its PubMed data. If it is a review more than five years old, a check should be made for more recent reviews or textbooks. Unless it has been widely cited, a ten-year-old source should only be used in very special cases. Since removing such sources can be controversial, it is advisable to first mark them, such as with {{bettersource}}, using the |inline= and |date= parameters. This allows other editors time to look for better replacements. While there is wp:NODEADLINE, waiting three months or even a year before deletion is not unreasonable, except for the most egregious sources. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, I of course agree about trying to replace the primary sources. But I have to point out that the study of sexual orientation, and especially what causes it, is where the "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." part of Misplaced Pages:MEDRS#Use up-to-date evidence comes in. Like I stated of the Pedophilia article at WP:MED back in December of last year, the thing about trying to follow WP:MEDRS's recommendation of "Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years." for this topic is that recent material is not always coming out about this. Some of the sources in the article, though old by WP:MEDRS's standards, are the most up-to-date for the information they are supporting. Where scientists are at now on the topic of what causes sexual orientation is what is currently found in this section of the Sexual orientation article. Further, this topic is not strictly a medical topic (at least not in the strict definition of medical as relating to health). Flyer22 (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Lede

I added a sorely needed sentence to the lede in order to tie up the loose ends of the preceding paragraph. The previous language had been ambiguous and convoluted, and left unanswered the top question on every readers mind: "What is the current consensus among scientists about when sexual orientation is determined?"

Misplaced Pages is here as a transparent source of information, and should not obscure information. The fact is, science has NOT ruled out social and cultural influences, and this should be readily apparent to the layperson without having to read through the entire article.

NPOV: The APA is one of the most ardent supporters of gay rights and gay marriage, and I did not have to "dig" for this source. Any attempt to remove this information from the lede should be viewed as in bad faith, politically motivated, and essentially anti-knowledge.Ragazz (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that the edit really adds value to the lede. It's essentially redundant with the second sentence of the lede, but worded in such a way as to subtlety cast doubt on the role of biology in sexual orientation. The last sentence of the edit seems to say "ignore everything else, here is the truth" and seems to be original research. - MrX 20:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't hate what you did, although I disagree that my wording was OR. I still feel that the wording of the APA quote is convoluted and beats around the bush a bit. Let's be realistic: What is the average layperson going to be trying to learn? They obviously were just listening to Lady Gaga or Oprah and they want to know "Are gay people born gay?" Well, the fact is that science doesn't know either way, so it should be made VERY obvious, to someone with average high school reading level.Ragazz (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem with your wording lay in your attempt to summarize the APA's position by saying, "In other words, the scientific community has not reached the conclusion that sexual orientation is determined before birth." One might say with at least equal validity that "the scientific community has not reached the conclusion that sexual orientation is determined after birth" . Summarizing it one way or the other creates at least the appearance of an WP:NPOV issue (and maybe WP:OR as well). Better to let the source's own wording speak for itself, imo. Rivertorch (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That is fine, so why not say "The scientific community has not reached a consensus as to at what point in development sexual orientation is determined." Clumsy language, but surely NPOV? As it is, crucial information is left out of the lede.Ragazz (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't MrX who removed your edit. As you've likely seen by now, it was Wikiwind. Wikiwind's addition, however, is even more redundant than what you added. But before either of your edits on this topic, the lead was clearer on the fact that what determines sexual orientation is not known when it stated "No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated." instead of "A simple and singular biological role for sexual orientation has not been conclusively demonstrated." You believe that most people who first come to this article are coming to it for the answer to the "Are gay people born gay?" question. However, whether a person can be gay (gay as in applying to males and females) when he or she comes out of the womb, scientists generally do not believe that sexual orientation is determined only by biology or only by environment, as touched on in the #Recent edits section. They generally believe that it's a complex combination of biological and environmental factors, similar to what the American Psychological Association states about that. Most scientists also do not believe that sexual orientation is a choice. I'm confused as to how you think that the lead doesn't make abundantly clear that scientists don't know what causes sexual orientation. As for "at what point in development sexual orientation determined," whether born with a sexual orientation, it being determined only by environment, or by a complex combination of both biology and environment, the American Psychological Association states in its How do people know if they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual? section: "According to current scientific and professional understanding, the core attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence. These patterns of emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction may arise without any prior sexual experience. People can be celibate and still know their sexual orientation-–be it lesbian, gay, bisexual, or heterosexual." Flyer22 (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Due to Scientiom sometimes using the Royal College of Psychiatrists source to push the POV that sexual orientation is only determined by biology, such as recently, despite the fact that most scientists state they don't know what causes sexual orientation and that they generally believe that sexual orientation is determined by a complex interplay of biology and the environment (both uterine and non-uterine environment), I have restored the lead to how it was before Ragazz's, Wikiwind's and Scientiom's recent changes. And let me be clear that the American Psychological Association, which is the world's largest association of psychologists, is more authoritative than the Royal College of Psychiatrists source. And out of all the big scientific organizations, the Royal College of Psychiatrists is the only one that asserts that sexual orientation seems to be only determined by biology. I also had to revert Scientiom on creating a WP:Undue weight section that presents only the Royal College of Psychiatrists statement on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

See the comments on my talk page for more on that. Flyer22 (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that my edit added some redundancy. As the lede stands, however, it's a little unclear. Flyer22, we generally agree about where things stand with the consensus in the scientific community. Maybe there needs to be a sentence to the effect: "Most scientists believe that there are a combination of biological and social/cultural factors". That information is in there, but it is not really made abundantly clear with the wording as is stands. On a less careful reading, one could interpret things to mean: "The roots of sexual orientation are all biological, including a, b, and c. Scientists don't know exactly how much of each factor comes into play, but the biological basis for sexual orientation are described in the article." Since we agree that the preceding does not describe that state of understanding, I think we can agree to a more clear wording that works for all of us.Ragazz (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The sources support the terms/phrases "genetic, hormonal, and environmental" and "environmental (biological and social)", but *not* "cultural" or "social/cultural". --Scientiom (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Ragazz, I was fine with this change you made to the lead, which is why I didn't contest it before moving on to edit other stuff (mostly revert vandalism). Per what I stated to you above, I agree that using "A simple and singular determinant for sexual orientation" is better than using "A simple and singular biological role for sexual orientation," but Scientiom has a point about not including "cultural." So I do object to including that ("cultural"). Scientiom reverted you. And I reverted Scientiom when he added the line about scientists favoring biological models, but then I reverted myself on that and tweaked the mention, as seen here and here. In addition to what I stated in that first edit summary about Scientiom's wording when tweaking the mention, we should avoid words such as "recently"...per WP:DATED. I don't feel strongly either way about mentioning in the lead that scientists generally favor biological models for explaining the cause of sexual orientation, but some of those biological models can also include social factors...such as the "Exotic becomes erotic" theory that has a section in the article. As for what you stated about attributing the text to what most scientists believe, I repeat what I stated about that in the Recent edits section above, including scientists generally favoring biological models for explaining the cause of sexual orientation: "...I am thinking that it is best that we drop any mention about what research generally suggests about sexual orientation, since research on sexual orientation is inconclusive, like the major scientific organizations state. Scientists generally favor biological models for the cause of sexual orientation, but they generally believe that sexual orientation is formed by a complex interplay of biological and social factors. So I feel that we should attribute the 'genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences' text to what scientists/researchers believe, which is also supported by the American Psychological Association source on the matter." Flyer22 (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Some comment with constructive intention. There is an article about Sexual orientation, another about environment and sexual orientation, and this one. So I think it would be appropriate just to say that this article is about the scientific work done to establish the relationship between biology and sexual orientation.--Auró (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

As shown in the Recent edits section above, there are also the Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation, Fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation and Handedness and sexual orientation articles. And then there's the Mental roots of sexual orientation and Neuroscience and sexual orientation articles. As for your proposal, considering that this article is titled Biology and sexual orientation, I don't see how it is necessary to tell readers that this article is about the scientific work done to establish the relationship between biology and sexual orientation. Unless put into a WP:HATNOTE, such an addition would be a WP:SELFREF violation. The lead also already lets readers know that this article is about the scientific work done to establish the relationship between biology and sexual orientation, without directly stating that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, reading WP:SELFREF closer, I see that the "This article is about" wording, without it being in a hatnote, may be acceptable. But I still don't see how such wording is beneficial concerning this article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

In other words. There is an article to collect the material concerning biology and sexual orientation, an other for environment and sexual orientation, and a third to consider the interplay and relative importance of both.--Auró (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It is unclear what is meant by the term "biological" in this article. Shouldn't "biological" be used in contrast to social? Are not genetic and hormonal both biological, with hormonal being both environmental and biological? I'm changing the list again, to make it more concise.Ragazz (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Need more eyes at Talk:Environment_and_sexual_orientation#History_of_Abuse.--В и к и T 07:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is that needed, Wikiwind, so that you guys can collude and bully me? That's pretty obvious. Look, these articles are much more slanted to the gay rights agenda than the APA. My only agenda here is to put science over politics. The notion that "the scientific community believes that every gay person is gay when they come out of the womb" is FALSE. Stop trying to paint me a conservative because I am NOT. I have learned a lot about this topic DESPITE Misplaced Pages editors like you. Maybe gay activists would have more allies if they stopped using blacklists and spreading misinformation, just a suggestion. Real liberals hate that stuff.Ragazz (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The notion that "the scientific community believes that every gay person is gay when they come out of the womb" is FALSE - I agree with this. I've never tried to paint you as conservative but I do believe that you are pushing a fringe POV, just like Scientiom, only in opposite direction. These two articles are related, and anyone who is interested in this article will probably be interested in Environment and sexual orientation. That's why I posted the notice.--В и к и T 09:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

From what I have read, it does seem that most scientists have discredited the idea that childhood sexual abuse (or any sexual abuse) causes or contributes to a person being gay or lesbian (though, for example, a woman who has been raped as an adult by a man may abstain from men sexually and adopt a lesbian identity as a result of that rape). Scientiom's POV-pushing isn't so much WP:FRINGE, though, considering that scientists generally favor biological models (theories) for explaining the cause of sexual orientation. Flyer22 (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I am indeed pushing for every notable hypothesis to be included in the article. I am not pushing fringe theories, any agenda, or my own POV. What I have found in my reading, is that pop and party-line articles over-simplify to make it seem like this is basically decided in favor of biological determinants (or, of course the opposite is true with anti-gay op-eds, a fact which is not relevant here). The notion that there could be non-biological environmental factors at play in some instances, has not been disproven (this would in reality be very difficult to disprove). Of course this point is not emphasized in official statements by the APA, but in a more in-depth article such as this, it would be irresponsible to not at least mention the alternative hypotheses. Wikiwind, I appreciate the sentiment.Ragazz (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ragazz, the notion that childhood sexual abuse (or any sexual abuse) causes or contributes to a person being gay or lesbian is WP:FRINGE. That's what Wikiwind and others meant about you giving it WP:UNDUE WEIGHT in the Environment and sexual orientation article. Creating a section specifically for a WP:FRINGE topic or a minor topic is considered WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to a lot of editors (often to me as well) because that section draws attention to that fringe or minor topic. Here are some parts of what WP:UNDUE WEIGHT states: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a 'see also' to an article about those specific views. ... Misplaced Pages should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. ... An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

As for the notion that there could be non-biological environmental factors at play in some instances of determining sexual orientation, as you know, no one in this discussion has denied that (not in this section at least); in fact, sexual orientation possibly being caused by a complex combination of biological and non-biological factors has been discussed in this section, and is made clear in the lead of the article. As you also know, the article has an "Exotic becomes erotic" theory section, which is partly about non-biological factors. But this article is titled Biology and sexual orientation. And whether the American Psychological Association emphasizes that non-biological environmental factors can be at play in some instances of determining sexual orientation, it clearly addresses that topic by stating, "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles." Flyer22 (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Any published support for this?

I am unable to find any published support for this section - the link is broken. "In September 2011, Binbin Wang et al. followed up on the SHH gene, and a publish-ahead-of-print article was published in the Journal of Andrology showing positive results in a study that found statistically significant differences in allele types between 361 identified homosexual subjects and 319 heterosexual control subjects.Wang (2011). "Association Analysis Between the Tag SNP for Sonic Hedgehog rs9333613 Polymorphism and Male Sexual Orientation". Journal of Andrology. {{cite journal}}: |format= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)" Tobeprecise (talk) 06:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Article does not accurately reflect or describe most recent and most comprehensive research

The abstract of the Swedish study refered to in this article, states: " ... genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and 64–.66 for unique environmental factors."

That is, individual-specific environmental factors accounted for some two-thirds of the variance (in both men and women), while genetic factors explained less than 20% of the variance in women, and about one-third of the variance in men.

However, both the lead and other sections of this article consistently place "genetics" in the first position in the lists of possible factors. Shouldn't the possible factors be placed in the order consistent with the most recent and comprehensive research? Tobeprecise (talk) 07:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

No response? I'll give it another day or two.Tobeprecise (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

My response: not necessarily. Newer studies have had less time to be reviewed and refuted, so being "consistent with the most recent and comprehensive research" may not be the best approach. And it's almost always a mistake to give too much weight to any single study, no matter how comprehensive. Secondary sources are a better bet for determining this sort of thing, imo. Rivertorch (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any secondary sources in mind?Tobeprecise (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect to the extensive work done by the prior editors regarding the lead, the result is a lead in sore need of copy-editing - it is written in a clumsy style, and does not completely accurately reflect the content of the article which follows. I am aware of a high level of interest in this article shown by two or three editors. However, reading the lead with fresh eyes, in my opinion, it is in need of a re-write, which I will propose.Tobeprecise (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Rivertorch is correct; see WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, and keep in mind what I stated in the #Sourcing section above about WP:MEDRS's up-to-date evidence guideline. WP:MEDRS also stresses systematic review sources; it is very strict about typically avoiding primary sources. For more on why that is the case, see, for example, this and this discussion where WP:MED members explain the matter. Not a lot of new information has come out about the speculated causes of sexual orientation, certainly no new information that most scientists agree on. With regard to sources and due weight on the topic of what causes sexual orientation, we should give significantly more weight to what authoritative sources (such as the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association) state on any particular matter, unless addressing a specific study. If that specific study is only supported by a small group of researchers, it shouldn't be given the prominent weight of, for example, being stated in the lead or being presented as the most up-to-date and accurate information. As we know, different authors can reach a different conclusion about the cause of sexual orientation. And, like I stated elsewhere, editors could cherry-pick their favorite authors, or favorite lines from whatever book, to support any stance they (the editors) have on sexual orientation, even WP:FRINGE views. This is why we are generally supposed to defer to authoritative bodies for this topic. Going by a single author's and/or scientist's conclusion, or even what a few of them state, is WP:UNDUE WEIGHT if given inappropriate weight in the article. Going by one or more recognized scientific organizations' statements is not, unless it, too, is given WP:UNDUE WEIGHT.

And I don't have a high level of interest in this article. I also did not write a lot of this article, so no "due respect" is needed with regard to me in this case. But I obviously have an interest in it, and there are more than three editors interested in it as well (whatever the degree of their interest in it may be). Some of them just don't comment on this talk page as often, and barely edit the article (whether it's to revert or whatever else). Flyer22 (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggest "Twin Studies" text be placed in order of comprehensiveness of study

It seems to me that standard WP practice is to place the most important information first in a section, and less important information lower in a section. Right now, the "Twin Studies" section is in roughly chronological order, rather than in order of the comprehensiveness of the study. (Chronological order would make sense if this were a discussion of the history of these studies - which it is not.)

I suggest that the studies in this section be placed in an order more closely approximating the comprehensiveness of the study (i.e, the more comprehensive the higher), the amount of criticism that each has received (i.e., the more criticism the lower), etc. Comments please.Tobeprecise (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

See here for what I stated to Tobeprecise about chronological order (that order is what I see most Misplaced Pages articles do when dealing with sections that mention dates in its text). There's not a lot more that I have to state about it than that. "Most important information" does not necessarily equate to "most recent." Also, per WP:MEDMOS (Sections), and the topic of sexual orientation does fall under WP:MED due to its psychology/psychiatry/neuroscience nature, History sections are usually placed close to last or last. History sections are also placed close to last or last in some other types of articles; it depends on how important it is for the History section to come first or earlier on in some other way in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 11:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hearing only one response, I'll address that one response. The one response so far seems to be addressing whether to put this section in chronological order, which was not the suggestion. The suggestion is that the studies be listed in order of importance, that is, comprehensiveness, critical response, etc. The more comprehensive studies go ahead of more limited studies, the more criticized studies go behind less criticized studies, etc. Since this is not a history section, the chronological order of the studies is immaterial.Tobeprecise (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect to the work done by the prior editors regarding this Twin Studies section, the result is a section in sore need of copy-editing - it is written in a clumsy style, full of WP:JARGON, and the issues raised earlier by LeadSongDog (above) do not appear to have been constructively solved. I am aware of a high level of interest in this article shown by two or three editors. However, reading this section with fresh eyes, in my opinion, it is in need of a substantial re-write, which I will propose.Tobeprecise (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

"The order of importance" in this case is your opinion, though. And I've already responded about the chronological matter. In this case, it does not matter that it's not a History section; for the reasons I've stated, I believe that the article is better off not discarding chronological order when dealing with sections that mention dates in its text.

There was no need to copy most of your "With all due respect" comment to this section. But, to follow your lead a bit on that by reiterating a bit of what I stated above, I don't have a high level of interest in this article. I also did not write a lot of this article, so no "due respect" is needed with regard to me in this case. But I obviously have an interest in it, and there are more than three editors interested in it as well (whatever the degree of their interest in it may be). Some of them just don't comment on this talk page as often, and barely edit the article (whether it's to revert or whatever else). The issues raised earlier by LeadSongDog were addressed; I agreed about trying to replace the primary sources. I also pointed to the up-to-evidence guideline that makes an exception for areas "where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published," and pointed out that "this topic is not strictly a medical topic (at least not in the strict definition of medical as relating to health)." Flyer22 (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

My specialty is copy-editing -- taking content and editing it into a more user-friendly, understandable flow. That could mean moving things around, revising clumsy or jargon-laden writing, moving material that doesn't meet Misplaced Pages standards to footnotes or the Talk page, streamlining duplications, organizing topics in a more logical manner, etc. My goal is not to alter the basic content, but to present content in a manner that is more easily accessible to the average reader. Along those lines, my copy-editor eyes see this entire article as the type of good faith assemblage that is often found in Misplaced Pages - people add on a section, placing it where it makes sense to them, later editors make changes, add other sections or topics, and after five years, there's a mosaic of solid and less-solid writing, older and newer material, all, to be frank, just basically patched together a bit haphazardly. In the near future, I'm going to WP:BRD and do a substantial copy-editing job. I would ask that the edited article be looked at seriously and in good faith, and that there not be a wholesale reversion back to the existing status. To the extent that specific changes catch anybody's eye, please bring those discussions here before any wholesale reversions.Tobeprecise (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not how WP:BRD works; the 'R' comes before the 'D' for a reason. I suggest you split your copyediting into several separate edits. Doing it that way allows discrete changes to be reverted more easily without other, non-disputed changes getting caught up in the process. Rivertorch (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

My request is consistent with this statement in the "R" part of WP:BRD:

"Rather than reverting, try to respond with your own BOLD edit if you can: If you disagree with an edit but can see a way to modify it rather than reverting it, do so. The other disputant may respond with yet another bold edit in an ongoing edit cycle. Avoid the revert stage for as long as possible."

Further, while your request to do this in pieces is certainly a sensible one, what I have in mind is a fairly substantial re-organization of a pretty jumbled article. I have my doubts that it's going to work to do that in pieces. I'll certainly do so to the extent practical, but it may need to all be done at once to have any part of it make sense.Tobeprecise (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

All right, but you're cherry-picking something from the WP:BRD that doesn't reflect the totality of the advice in the essay. It's up to you how to proceed, but given that others have raised concerns about some of your proposed changes, you might want to take a conservative approach. There are certain edits that are difficult or impossible to modify without inadvertently making a hash out of things or spending an inordinate amount time laboriously copying, pasting, dragging, and meticulously checking what one has done. For better or worse, such edits often end up getting weighed as net positives or net negatives and dealt with accordingly. Rivertorch (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I humbly disagree that repeating a basic tenet of WP:BRD is "cherry-picking". Also, I don't believe that impatient editing can be made acceptable by excusing it as "for better or worse". There's no need for the "worse" option, when the "better" option is available with some forethought.Tobeprecise (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Tobeprecise, you stated that you are "going to WP:BRD and do a substantial copy-editing job," but then stated that you "would ask that the edited article be looked at seriously and in good faith, and that there not be a wholesale reversion back to the existing status." But, in addition to what you have stated about WP:BRD, it is about being bold, an editor reverting the bold revision wholesale, and then discussion about the matter taking place or rather continuing. To ask us to examine your extensive rewrite live and edit back in what we think should remain, take out what we think should not, is laborious. I'm not sure what else you want us to state, but to agree with you. We've already disagreed with you on some of what you have proposed, so we all should at least try to compromise. Instead of rewriting the article in the WP:MAINSPACE, I suggest you copy and paste it into your sandbox and rewrite it there so that we can review your proposal that way and come to a WP:CONSENSUS about it. I'm sure that we can agree to some of your proposed changes. Flyer22 (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Any particular reason why the Francis study (Emory 2008) is not included in this article?

Does anyone know of any particular reason why this study by Francis (Emory 2008) does not appear to be referenced in this article? (Family and Sexual Orientation: The Family-Demographic Correlates of Homosexuality in Men and Women) Is it referenced here and I'm just missing it? Tobeprecise (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed CE

Just so interested editors have a sense of scale, these are among the changes that I will be proposing:

• Reduce unnecessary WP:JARGON - unnecessary use of medical terms and academic jargon, when more accessible ordinary English is available
• Topics grouped into a more logical order - the topics fall into three categories, (1) discussion of the "causes" of same-gender attraction (e.g., genetic, uterine hormones, etc.), (2) biological differences between gay and non-gay people (e.g., ring finger length), and (3) commentary or other observations (e.g., political implications).
• Better cohesion of writing style - there is currently a wide mixture of writing styles.

The proposed CE will address these issues, among others.Tobeprecise (talk) 11:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, what you consider a more logical order is not what I consider a more logical order...at least with regard to listing studies when the dates of the studies are mentioned in the text. Many of our readers don't like reading studies backwards, and neither do I. Like I stated above, I suggest you copy and paste the article into your sandbox and rewrite it that way so that editors of this article will clearly and visually know what they are in for by being able to see your proposal. What to include or not to include with regard to your proposal can be worked out that way, and a wholesale revert of it can be avoided. Flyer22 (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Right. I'm assuming good faith, and trusting that these guidelines from WP:OWN will be respected:

"Examples of ownership behavior:

• "... The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article ...
• "Justified article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.
• "... The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the article altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it."

The discussion about "tag team" ownership on this same page is interesting as well.Tobeprecise (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Tobeprecise, I'm responding to this on your talk page. Rivertorch (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Tobeprecise, it's a disagreement. We have disagreed with some of the things you want to do with regard to this article. That does not equate to WP:OWN. The fact that we have been open to working with you, compromising with you, on this matter is the exact opposite of WP:OWN. I agree with most of what Rivertorch stated to you about this matter; only exception is that if there is a perceived WP:OWN problem at an article, I feel that the article talk page is the best place to discuss that, or an appropriate noticeboard if the WP:OWNERSHIP is blatant (very obvious), instead of the editor's talk page. From what I see, you are not willing to compromise on this matter; it's either your way or the highway. Flyer22 (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Of numbers and hair whorls

In regards to the Physiological dot-point "A study of 50 gay men found 23% had counterclockwise hair whorl, as opposed to 8% in the general population." Sorry to be a numbers nazi, but how can you get 23% from 50 people. This number would be 11.5 people. Either they have it or they don't. Please fix the figure to either 22% or 24%. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.4.188.206 (talk) 03:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The source is vague about the exact numbers, and I have modified the wording to reflect that. Rivertorch (talk) 05:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• High-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• B-Class Biology articles
• Mid-importance Biology articles
• WikiProject Biology articles
• B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics