Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:37, 25 July 2013

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Homosexuality. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Homosexuality at the Reference desk.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

	Homosexuality was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 5, 2006 Good article nominee Listed August 2, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted January 9, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed January 26, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Delisted good article

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

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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Social and political philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology 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. Sexology and sexuality Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-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. Psychology Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index July 2003-August 2003 August 2003-April 2004 April 2004 April 2004-July 2004 August 2004-October 2004 October 2004-March 2005 March 2005-June 2005 June 2005-July 2005 August 2005-December 2005 January 2006-August 2006 September 2006-July 2007 September 2007-May 2008

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Edit war: Asexuality and the term homosexuality

Recently an edit war has broken out and so i'm interrupting and hopefully ending it. Nathan, i prefer your wording. No offense Flyer22, but yours seems misleading to me. People are not gay if they have gay sex. They are gay if they identify as such and have an exclusive sexual or romantic attraction to only their own gender. Adding the part about sex just looks misleading. Opinions? ツ Jenova20 14:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Sexual behavior is not the same as sexual attraction. Vague waving to sources in the article doesn't cut it. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

For reference, here are my edits on this matter:. And here are Nathan's:. It was on Nathan to apply WP:BRD. Being an administrator does not mean that he should have foregone it or reverted me for WP:Edit warring when he was also edit warring.

Moving on: Nathan accused me of putting in WP:Original research. I did not. What Nathan added is WP:Original research. And here's why it is: He added that asexuality is one of the four main categories of sexual orientation and that it is within the heterosexual–homosexual continuum. Like I stated, "asexuality is highly debated as a sexual orientation" and "it's not considered a main category of sexual orientation by researchers/is not listed within the heterosexual–homosexual continuum." This is shown by this source, this source (there is currently no website for this journal: "Asexuality gets more attention, but is it a sexual orientation?". Contemporary Sexuality 39 (11): 1, 4–5) and this source, taken from from the Asexuality article that I've significantly worked on. The fact that asexuality is not recognized as a legitimate sexual orientation by most researchers is also why it was heavily debated at Template talk:Sexual orientation and at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality whether or not to keep it listed on that template (I was one of the ones who agreed to keep it listed on the template because it has gotten a lot more recognition in recent years and leaving the template without it suggests that a person must be sexually attracted to someone).

On the topic of homosexuality, I do not have to be told that "eople are not gay if they have gay sex" and that "exual behavior is not the same as sexual attraction," considering that I have stated some variation of that many times in Misplaced Pages discussions, as recently as this discussion, and off Misplaced Pages. Nathan Johnson and Jenova are confusing the term homosexual with the variation homosexuality. The term homosexual is used more so for sexual orientation, while the variation homosexuality is used more so to describe any same-sex sexual behavior. Even so, researchers often use the term homosexual to describe same-sexual behavior (such as "homosexual acts" between men), which is why they also apply the term to non-human animals. Like I stated at Talk:Environment and sexual orientation, "most scientists do not assign sexual orientation labels to non-human animals, except for when describing the behavior of those animals. See, for example, the "Applying the term homosexual to animals" section in the Homosexual behavior in animals article. Most scientists do not do this (except for, as I stated, describing behavior) because non-humans animals cannot communicate with humans in the same in-depth way that humans can, and most non-human animals cannot communicate with humans in any in-depth way at all. Therefore, assessing their sexual orientation, what goes on in their minds as opposed to their behavior (considering that sexual behavior does not always match up with one's sexual orientation), is very difficult." The American Psychological Association, an authoritative source on this topic, also defines homosexuality in terms of behavior in addition to attraction, and so do a good majority of sources in this article. That's why the lead made sure to define homosexuality in general terms first, and then to describe the sexual orientation aspect of it. That's why this article does not only discuss homosexuality in terms of the sexual orientation aspect (what goes in the mind). To keep the lead the way Nathan has it is to go against the majority of reliable sources on these topics.

Since this discussion would benefit from a sexologist weighing in on it, I will ask James Cantor to comment here on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read much of that yet but i can point out that Nathan is not an admin Flyer. Thanks ツ Jenova20 16:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I confused the administrator matter, and have tweaked that portion of my comment above. And thank you for this discussion you had with Nathan Johnson, Jenova. Flyer22 (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The sources on asexuality don't back up your claim. An opinion in a student newspaper is not a reliable source. That "journal" is not a reliable source. The book, I think, actually supports my claim.

Further, if you define sexuality as a spectrum from homosexual to heterosexual, by definition there is no such thing as asexuality.

I really don't care about the other thing. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I replied below. Flyer22 (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have reverted the edit that had removed mention of sexual activity from the lead sentence

  Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual activity between members of the same sex or gender.

  and that had changed the more descriptive wording

  Homosexuality is one of the three main categories of sexual orientation, along with bisexuality and heterosexuality, within the heterosexual–homosexual continuum (with asexuality sometimes considered a fourth).

  to this wording

  Homosexuality is one of the four main categories of sexual orientation, along with asexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality.

  There has long been mention of sexual activity in the lead sentence, and it is appropriate that there be, since it is an integral part of what the term homosexuality refers to. The revised wording in the next paragraph appears to place undue weight on the controversial inclusion of asexuality as a fourth category of sexual orientation. It is appropriate that it be mentioned but not that it be given unqualified equal status in Misplaced Pages's voice, and the former wording seems satisfactory. Rivertorch (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Asexuality is not controversial unless homosexuality and bisexuality are also considered controversial. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The sources do support my claim that asexuality is highly debated as a sexual orientation. The journal, no matter that you disregard it as a reliable source (and no matter that I'm also not the one who added it to the Asexuality article), shows the debate among researchers. The Sex and Society source does not support your stance at all; it states: "Sexual orientations are typically thought of as being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. Recently, however, some researchers have proposed that asexuality is potentially another sexual orientation." Keywords there are "typically thought of" and "potentially." The student newspaper source (which I also did not add to the Asexuality article) is used as a side source, and counts as a WP:Reliable source for showing that there is significant debate about whether or not to call asexuality a sexual orientation. Further, there are not a lot of great sources on the topic of asexuality, as a human sexual orientation and not as asexual reproduction, because scientific attention has focused so little on it. No authoritative scientific organization, such as the American Psychological Association (source linked above), lists asexuality as a sexual orientation. Most researchers simply do not discuss asexuality when speaking of sexual orientation. All of this makes you calling it one of the main sexual orientations WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Therefore, you should revert yourself at the Bisexuality article and at the Heterosexuality article. This edit you made to the Asexuality article, as if the Asexuality article is about homosexuality and as if homosexuality is significantly debated among researchers as being a sexual orientation, was completely in the wrong.

As for "if you define sexuality as a spectrum from homosexual to heterosexual, by definition there is no such thing as asexuality," that's not true. The heterosexual–homosexual continuum is about sexual orientation, not sexuality in general. And again, asexuality is highly debated as a sexual orientation. Further, a person can be gay or lesbian, for example, and still be asexual; this is because all sexual orientations (the ones recognized as sexual orientations by most experts in the fields of psychology and sexology) have a romantic aspect, and, as the Asexuality article notes, some asexuals experience romantic attraction and engage in solely romantic relationships. Instead of calling themselves heterosexual or homosexual (as in "a heterosexual asexual" or "a homosexual asexual"), for example, some of them have opted to call themselves heteromantic or homoromantic (others consider themselves "a heterosexual asexual" or "a homosexual asexual"). Flyer22 (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

My only addition to this discussion is a question: Why has the word "behavior" been changed to "activity" (as in 'sexual behavior' as used in the article leads on heterosexuality and bisexuality)? I would like to see the terms used consistent across all three. Teammm 
_email 00:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Teammm. It got that way after the "Romantic, sexual attraction" discussion I had with MrX. MrX opted to use one of my proposed wordings without the use of "or some combination of these," and I never got around to applying "sexual activity" to the Heterosexuality article, and it doesn't work to use "sexual activity toward males and females" for the Bisexuality article...while it does work to use "sexual behavior toward males and females" for that article. I agree about consistency, which is why I applied some consistency to the Heterosexuality and Bisexuality articles after my discussion with MrX and is another reason why Nathan Johnson should revert himself at the Heterosexuality and Bisexuality articles or someone else should revert him. However, since "behavior" by itself is not as clear as "sexual behavior" because "behavior" can mean any type of behavior, I prefer that we use "sexual behavior." Whether we use "behavior," "sexual behavior" or "sexual activity," the WP:Pipelink for those words is the Human sexual activity article, with the latter two "terms" redirecting to that article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for informing me. Teammm 
_email 01:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think asexual should be included. It's a lack of sexual attraction, while the other 3 is sexual attraction to a specific sex of person. CTF83! 01:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, Teammm.

Ctjf83, I was going to add some sources for Cavann's request for a source that asexuality is sometimes considered the fourth category, but without keeping Garik's "on the same continuum" wording because I'm not aware of any source that says "on the same continuum" with regard to asexuality. I'm not aware of any source that says "sometimes" with regard to asexuality being a sexual orientation either, but using "sometimes" is better than using what some editors will consider to be WP:Weasel wording by using "by some researchers." But now I'll wait and see what develops with regard to asexuality being mentioned in this article. Years ago, I wondered why the leads of the Sexual orientation, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and Bisexuality articles mention asexuality, considering that most people (researchers included) don't think of it when they think of sexual orientation, but that was also at a time when I was not as educated on the topic of asexuality as I am now (I've been far more educated on the main three sexual orientations for a long time). Now, however, I do think that mention of asexuality in the lead of the Sexual orientation article, not just the lower body of that article, is appropriate. Not so sure about mentioning it in the leads of the Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and Bisexuality articles. Flyer22 (talk) 03:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Not really my wording. Or at least the meaning wasn't mine even if some of the words were. I said "on the same continuum" because that's equivalent to what was there before: The previous wording, "Homosexuality is one of the three main categories of sexual orientation ... within the heterosexual–homosexual continuum (with asexuality sometimes considered a fourth)", clearly implies that asexuality is on the same continuum as homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality. I'm making no comment as to whether that's a reasonable claim or not. My edit was purely stylistic. It was a poorly written sentence as it stood. garik (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

As others have pointed out already, asexuality is not on a homosexuality/heterosexuality continuum. More to the point, the only reason for the awkward inclusion of asexuality in the lede seems to be to assert that it is a sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is already inked in the lede and the question of whether or not asexuality is or is not considered a sexual orientation should be discussed there. I see no reason to introduce the subject of asexuality into this particular article, particularly if there is some question about what it is. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't plan on entering this discussion in a significant way, but I would agree with Delicious carbuncle. Asexuality should be in the sexual orientation article, not needed in the others. Teammm 
_email 23:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

As you know, it's already excluded from the Bisexuality article; it just needs to be excluded from the Heterosexuality article, for consistency if not anything else. Flyer22 (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that, Teammm. And I went ahead and took care of the behavior/sexual behavior/sexual activity point we discussed above. Flyer22 (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Outside view

Hi, folks. I’m sorry for my delay. I was away at the time Flyer asked for my input, and I am only now catching up. As for the issue itself, I think I appreciate both perspectives, and I suspect that these ideas are actually very close, and that most of the disagreement is about different RS’s using slightly different senses of these terms.

That is, there does exist a sense in which asexuality can be said to be a sexual orientation, and there exist writers (of various legitimacies) who insist so. There also exists a sense in which asexuality was what not what experts always had in mind when they made whatever statement about sexual orientation. (That is, some authors were using the phrase to mean “gay versus straight,” others to mean “gay/lesbian versus straight,” others to mean “homosexual vs bisexual vs. homosexual,” and still others who use still more complicated “grids” to refer to multidimentional models of sexual orientation.)

I do not believe there yet exists any consensus in the expert literature over this terminology. So, although I believe it is legitimate to mention asexuality in some discussions of sexual orientation, I don’t think WP articles should be write so as to presume it either.

I hope that’s a help. — James Cantor (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, James. Thanks for the outside view at my request. I'm not sure what you mean by "exists a sense in which asexuality was what not what experts always had in mind when they made whatever statement about sexual orientation." By that, do you mean that asexuality was excluded from being defined as a sexual orientation? I'm a little confused by that line and what you put in parentheses after it. Also, do you have anything to state about the term homosexual and its spelling variation homosexuality that I mentioned above? Your comments on that, how the terms (like heterosexual and heterosexuality) also sometimes refer to behavior only and don't always refer strictly to sexual orientation (in the sense of what goes on in the mind; the enduring attraction), may help others to better understand that aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I now understand what you mean by your second paragraph. I got confused by the use of "some authors were using the phrase" that you included in parentheses; my mind registered "the phrase" to mean "asexuality," which obviously didn't make sense, when you actually meant "sexual orientation." Flyer22 (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

What is a continuum?

I have just reverted a phrase that said that asexuality may be 'on the same continuum' as heterosexual-bisexual-homosexual. I have no opinion, and no knowledge of the literature, regarding the status of asexual as a sexual orientation, but I have a science background and I do know what a continuum is. If anywhere, asexual stands on a different continuum, the other end of which may be labelled something like 'highly sexed'. If these two continua are placed at right angles, we may have a meaningful plane, with four sectors for highly active and mostly inactive homosexuals and heterosexuals respectively, with moderately driven bisexuals in the middle. However, I see that the original statement is lacking a source and has been challenged. This is the kind of muddle we get into when we try to create the science ourselves, rather than starting with reliable sources and letting them guide our encyclopedia writing, IMHO. --Nigelj (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

You may have seen already, but this a part of the discussion immediately above this one, Nigel. Flyer22 (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

In case I get blamed unduly (see above) for this particular wording, I'd like it to be recorded that I agree with you, Nigel. I can't see how asexuality can be considered to fall on this continuum. garik (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, Flyer, but I was trying only to pick off just one small aspect, rather than the bigger issue. Hi Garik, no, no one's blaming anyone ;-) I did think that the idea of asexuality being part of an independent variable might help with the 'four categories' debate, but it was pure WP:OR without a ref. I see the whole phrase has gone now anyway. --Nigelj (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The text about what causes sexual orientation in the lead

And yet here we are again. I might was as well start this discussion since Scientiom will likely continue to revert Cavann, Cavann will likely continue to revert Scientiom, and I will continue to revert any unsupported text by Scientiom that I know is unsuppported.

Like I stated here and further explained here in the edit history of the Homosexuality article, the lead was extensively worked out in the Religion POV in intro (RFC) and Causes of sexual orientation discussions. There was WP:CONSENSUS, which Scientiom was a part of, to use the "complex interplay" wording, similar to what we do for the Sexual orientation and Biology and sexual orientation articles where we state that scientists suggest that sexual orientation is caused by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences, because they do indeed seem to generally believe that a variety of factors form sexual orientation, including non-biological factors (generally to a lesser degree with regard to non-biological factors). This is reflected by statements made by the American Psychological Association (which is the world's largest association of psychologists and more authoritative than the Royal College of Psychiatrists), by the American Academy of Pediatrics, by what these same organizations have stated in joint statements or what other scientific organizations have stated, and by sources in the Biology and sexual orientation and Environment and sexual orientation articles. Despite what Cavann stated at Scientiom's talk page, the belief that sexual orientation may be partially caused by non-biological factors is not WP:FRINGE. For example, the American Psychological Association states: "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." And the American Academy of Pediatrics states: "A variety of theories about the influences on sexual orientation have been proposed. Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts."

While believing that parenting, sexual abuse or other adverse (hostile/harmful) life events influence sexual orientation is WP:FRINGE, those are not the only non-biological factors that may influence sexual orientation. In this extensive discussion I had with others at Talk:Biology and sexual orientation about how to word the lead of the Biology and sexual orientation article, I suggested 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." There is WP:CONSENSUS, after recent extensive discussions at that talk page, to mention the non-biological factor aspect in the lead of that article. Like I pointed out there, biological models for sexual orientation are not always only biological. The "Exotic becomes erotic" theory, for example (which is a section in the Biology and sexual orientation article), includes a lot of social material because it's about how biology interacts with social aspects to form sexual orientation.

Because of the issues that keep coming up with mentioning in the lead of the Homosexuality article the topic of what causes sexual orientation, I have thought that we would be better off not mentioning the theorized causes in the lead of this article, and should rather leave that to the Biology and sexual orientation and Environment and sexual orientation articles, or to the other articles about what may cause sexual orientation (Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation, Mental roots of sexual orientation, Neuroscience and sexual orientation, Fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation, Handedness and sexual orientation and Epigenetic theories of homosexuality), or simply to the lower portion of the article, to handle it. But then I remember that we mention it in the lead because too many people out there believe that homosexuality (the sexual orientation, not only the behavior) is a choice, and that mentioning this aspect in the lead satisfies WP:LEAD. Flyer22 (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I will copy and paste what I wrote to Scientiom's page.

"...but rather a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors, especially with regard to early uterine environment" is a stupid and incorrect way to word it. First of all, it gives undue weight to non-biological environmental factors. This is unsourced or fringe. Second of all, it is not clear if "especially with regard to early uterine environment" refers to environmental factors or biological factors or both. If it is referring to both, it ignores genetic factors. The avg reader would think environmental factors are parenting, so would assume it refers to biological factors. Again, this ignores genetic factors and still gives the impression that things like parenting may play a role. This is incorrect."Cavann (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Also genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences = biological, since by environmental influences, they primarily mean uterine environment. But when you word it like "biological and environmental", especially deleting what RC of Psychiatrists say, you give UNDUE weight to non-biological environmental reasons. Cavann (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

For record on this talk page, here is Scientiom's reply to Cavann: "I seem to have been misunderstood. I completely agree with your point, and fully agree on the point about the Royal College of Psychiatrists source. I was trying to make this clearer on the article, and will attempt to make clear the research pointing to biology in the article. Oh, and by the way, 'early uterine environment' = womb."

Regarding Cavann's comment to Scientiom, I'm confused by Cavann stating "so would assume it refers to biological factors." I state that because, from my experience, most people assume that "environmental factors" mean non-biological factors, and, before Cavann stated "so would assume it refers to biological factors," he similarly stated that "The avg reader would think environmental factors are parenting." As for the rest of Cavann's reply to Scientiom, my thoughts on that are covered by my reply above in this section. I don't have a lot more to state on this topic that wouldn't be redundant to that. Cavann has reverted Scientiom again, and one thing I agree with Cavann on regarding this matter is that inclusion of "especially with regard to the early uterine environment" is WP:UNDUE WEIGHT and should remain excluded. The "especially with regard to the early uterine environment" wording was not a part of the WP:CONSENSUS version of the lead, which I made clear in the "Causes of sexual orientation" discussion (linked above) that took place on this talk page; also seen in that discussion is where I argue that the "especially with regard to the early uterine environment" wording is WP:SYNTHESIS.

Cavann, "genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences" does not equal "only biological"; it does not because "uterine environment" is already covered by "hormonal," and, like I stated above, some biological models for sexual orientation include social factors. The American Academy of Pediatrics does not mean "biological factors" when using the wording "environmental influences" in the following statement: "Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences." It is even clearer that they don't mean that when tracing the statement to the source that they based that statement on, which was addressed in the aforementioned discussion at the Biology and sexual orientation talk page. As sources in the Environment and sexual orientation article show, "environmental influences" does not primarily mean "uterine environment." And, again, the American Psychological Association, which is the world's largest association of psychologists, is more authoritative than the Royal College of Psychiatrists; this can be confirmed by editors at WP:MED. Flyer22 (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"The American Academy of Pediatrics does not mean "biological factors" when using the wording "environmental influences" in the following statement:" Source? I can't trace length discussions in other pages.

Environmental influences include biological factors, such as uterine environment (ie: hormonal environment). However, it is WP:SYNTHESIS to word it like "biological and environmental factors" because, then, you give UNDUE weight to non-biological environmental factors. This is also not sourced. And please don't point to other wiki articles, Wiki articles cannot be sources. And I don't have time to verify every source in Environment and sexual orientation. Cavann (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Why would you think that the American Academy of Pediatrics means "biological factors" when using the wording "environmental influences" in the aforementioned example? I've never seen anyone take it that way. For example, MrX, in the "Causes of sexual orientation" discussion (linked above) that took place on this talk page stated, "I assume that we're on the same page with regard to 'environmental factors' referring to sociological factors, as opposed to 'early uterine environment' referring to biological factors." And like I replied when agreeing with him on that, "it is explicitly clear that these researchers don't only mean 'uterine environment' when they state 'environmental factors' or 'environmental influences' because they list 'hormonal' and 'environmental' separately; they do that because they state that all of these factors -- biology, hormones (which are considered biological by various reliable sources, including ones on sexual orientation) and social environment -- are involved in a complex interplay when it comes to forming sexual orientation." I already linked to the discussion (above) where the American Academy of Pediatrics source was dissected. Here is the link to that extensive discussion again. You can also trace the American Academy of Pediatrics "combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences" statement to the source that they based that statement on by clicking on the reference number for that statement in the source.

I'm not sure why you believe that theoretical non-biological factors for the causes of sexual orientation are WP:FRINGE, but, per what I stated above about that, they are not....except for when asserting that parenting, sexual abuse or other adverse (hostile/harmful) life events influence sexual orientation. To call the other theorized non-biological factors fringe is to imply that there is consensus among scientists that sexual orientation is only caused by biology. As the American Psychological Association makes perfectly clear, there is not; non-biological aspects are still considered, and many scientists, as the American Psychological Association supports, believe that both nature and nurture, or, more accurately, biological and non-biological factors (just in case some people take "nurture" to only mean "parenting") play complex roles in the development of sexual orientation. The wording "environmental influences" with regard to sexual orientation does not always mean "biological factors," as, again, sources in the Environment and sexual orientation article make perfectly clear. You don't need to verify the sources in that article to know that; doing a simple Google search or Google Scholar search will show that "environmental influences" with regard to sexual orientation means either "non-biological influences" or "uterine environment," or both.

It is not WP:SYNTHESIS to use the wording "biological and environmental factors," nor is it WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to do so. It's not synthesis because the sources make it clear that many scientists believe that a combination of biological and non-biological factors form sexual orientation. And it's not undue weight to mention that sexual orientation may be partially caused by non-biological factors, because, like I just stated, "many scientists believe that a combination of biological and non-biological factors form sexual orientation." It's rare that scientists believe that sexual orientation is only caused by biology, which is why you don't see any authoritative scientific organization stating that it is. Even the Royal College of Psychiatrists doesn't state that; it states "it would appear": "It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by genetic factors (Mustanski et al, 2005) and/or the early uterine environment (Blanchard et al. 2006)." And, as can be seen, it is basing that on two separate studies. It is WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to make it seem as though the Royal College of Psychiatrists has the most authoritative and/or final say on that. I'm very familiar with that source because Scientiom has used it enough times to make it seem as though scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is only biological.

And as I am a very experienced Misplaced Pages editor, I am already very aware that we should not use Misplaced Pages as sources. I didn't point to Misplaced Pages articles as sources; I pointed to the sources used in those Misplaced Pages articles, and that is perfectly acceptable to do in a talk page discussion. Reading the past lengthy discussions, even if not all of them, where these sexual orientation matters were worked out, will help you or others understand where I, Scientiom or others are coming from on this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"It's not synthesis because the sources make it clear that many scientists believe that a combination of biological and non-biological factors form sexual orientation" Source? Which scientists? Do they give equal weight to both? Also don't just come up with one study, when there are review papers and policy statements that suggest otherwise.

Also, can you be more concise please? Cavann (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Btw, given that you said this

It's rare that scientists believe that sexual orientation is only caused by biology, which is why you don't see any authoritative scientific organization stating that it is. Even the Royal College of Psychiatrists doesn't state that; it states "it would appear": "It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by genetic factors (Mustanski et al, 2005) and/or the early uterine environment (Blanchard et al. 2006).

You are aware that uterine environment is a biological factor, right? Biological does not simply mean genetic.Cavann (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Cavann, for one example, do you not think that the American Psychological Association is speaking of scientists' beliefs all the way through when it states, "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."? That's not one study. And I would not rely on one study for such a statement. That is an authoritative scientific organization speaking. And, no, scientists generally don't give equal weight to both theoretical biological factors and theoretical non-biological factors. The American Academy of Pediatrics source is correct about scientists favoring biological models for the cause of sexual orientation; but, again, some biological models for sexual orientation include social factors.

As for being concise, yes, I am familiar with WP:Too long, didn't read. I am only lengthy in my responses when I feel that I need to be.

As for "uterine environment," I consider it clear that I am aware that "uterine environment" is a biological factor. I don't understand why you asked Scientiom if he is aware of that. Or why you have now asked me that now. Look above; for example, in my "21:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)" comment, I stated "genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences" does not equal "only biological"; it does not because "uterine environment" is already covered by "hormonal." By that, I was/am saying that the American Academy of Pediatrics already covered biological factors by mentioning "genetic, hormonal." That means, like MrX also deduced, they don't mean "biological factors" when stating "environmental influences." There is no need to state "environmental influences" to mean "uterine environment" when "uterine environment" is already covered by "hormonal." It's also clear from the two archived discussions I linked to above that I am aware that "uterine environment" is a biological aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, good. In any case, the possible ambiguities you pointed out is covered by "There is no consensus among scientists about the causes of why a person develops a particular sexual orientation". Cavann (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. And I'd already stated that I don't much mind your rewrite. As noted above, what spurred on this discussion is that Scientiom completely (or seemingly completely) disagrees with your rewrite, no matter whether the previous version or the shuffled version. I mentioned in this edit summary that I think what he primarily disagrees with regarding your rewrite is that the lead now mentions the "no consensus" aspect and especially the "little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation" portion. Knowing how Scientiom is on the topic of sexual orientation, he hates any claim or implication that sexual orientation is a choice, even if mentioning that it may be a choice for a small number of people and that it's "little sense of choice" for those people. I don't buy that it's a choice in any way either (except for people deciding to engage in sexual behavior), but I'm not as bothered by mention of the choice view as Scientiom is. I'm sure that he'd rather you drop the "little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation" portion. We'll see when he returns. And to be clearer on the "uterine environment" aspect: When I stated that the Royal College of Psychiatrists does not say that sexual orientation is only caused by biology, I was not saying that they were claiming that "early uterine environment" is not a biological aspect. How one could even deduce that they are claiming that, given that they outright state that "early uterine environment" is biological in nature, is beyond me...unless the person has comprehension problems. I was instead emphasizing that the Royal College of Psychiatrists states "it would appear" and not "it is." Flyer22 (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I did not completely read your answers given their sheer size. More concise answers would make it more efficient to communicate and lead to less misunderstandings.Cavann (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Even when I know that I won't be concise because I feel that there is a lot I need to explain, I try to be concise. I often keep the idea of being concise in mind. To reiterate, I am only lengthy in my responses when I feel that I need to be. I will keep your take on the size of my comments in mind. Flyer22 (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: Scientiom has continued his edit warring without discussion on this talk page about the material in question, and despite being warned by Cavann yesterday for doing so. The reason that I assert that he is misrepresenting the Royal College of Psychiatrists source again is that it does not state that "parenting or early childhood experiences do not play a role in determining sexuality"; it states "there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences have any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation." In other words, they don't state "do not" or "does not" as though it is an absolute with regard to this; they state "no substantive evidence." Those phrasings have different meanings, which is obviously why Scientiom has resorted to changing the former. Further information about what scientists believe is higher in this section, of course. I have also extensively replied to Scientiom at my talk page about his editing. Flyer22 (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead Text - Confusing, contradictory, concluding without proper source

This discussion is started with my removal of the following, which has been reversed. "Moreover, there is "no substantive evidence" which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role."

My concern arose from the source having referenced the book Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. The wiki article itself states that the book is widely considered outdated and the sources of information in the book are questionable, where other studies have shown different results. Even if we were to suggest the source is acceptable, the lead has very contradictory or questionable conclusion it is making. Going from there's no consensus, to a suggestion that most experts agree that biology is the primary factor, to environment being no factor. Frankly I don't see why all of this must be placed in the lead when after noting there's no conclusive evidence, it can be left for the Cause section to discuss (and all three of these points are echoed in the causes anyway). The other cited references for causes should get just as much mention (environmental effects or gender fluidity for example) or none of them should be highlighted in the lead. As it stands, the article has a strong bias in supporting biological effects and severely downplays anything that suggests anything else.

One other thing I noticed is the article ends up citing animals at the end, when the article specifics states animal homosexuality is found on another page. Does this need to be posted as well? Sarstan (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Sarstan. For note of it here on this talk page, I point out that you are referring to this source by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. In the section immediately above this one, I've stated a lot about the lead with regard to biological and non-biological factors...and mentioned that source. I'd rather not go over a lot of that again at this time. But you can read that to see where I'm coming from on the matter. Your points above about this matter are valid. But I will reiterate here that while scientists generally state that they don't know what causes sexual orientation, they do, like one source in the lead states, appear to favor biological models for the cause of sexual orientation. However, like I also noted above, some biological models include social factors. Scientists also generally don't seem to believe that parenting, sexual abuse or other adverse (hostile/harmful) life events influence sexual orientation (the enduring sexual attraction as opposed to sexual behavior).

As for having an Other animals section, a lot of Misplaced Pages articles do that; see the Sections part of WP:MEDMOS, for example. It's generally done even if the WP:HATNOTE points out where the article about non-human aspects can be found. Such a section is included because it makes a more balanced article; it is also a form of WP:Summary style if an article exists for the non-human aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 06:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I admit, I didn't read through that, but I do see it was for a similar concern. The wording definitely seems to put a lid on the topic, even though that isn't quite what it says. In either case I'll see about providing a few sources toward environmental factors sometime in the near future (probably tomorrow) to try to give this topic a little more fairness in presentation. I noticed in the Causes section there is no mention of environmental factors overall, which I hope to rectify. This way it's providing an argument against what I had originally attempted to remove instead of simply removing it.

Sarstan (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You should learn the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behaviour, and environment is not necessarily parenting before proceeding further. Cavann (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I don't plan on bothering with this page any longer. It's clear that unsourced biased statements made in offhand have more value than articles that cite studies. I'm not really sure why there needs to be consensus on showing that one statement made has an equally argued statement that disagrees. The last edit I made was allowing both views (which admittedly could be presented better), but as it stands, all mention of anything other than biological reasons has been wiped from the page. Would there be any point in putting up a NPOV tag? Sarstan (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Your incoherent opinion about that "It's clear that unsourced biased statements made in offhand have more value than articles that cite studies" does not constitute a valid argument for a NPOV tag.Cavann (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Sarstan, I was clear with this edit and this edit about why I reverted your most recent edits to the article. Specifically regarding consensus, I mean that you made a controversial change to the lead that is better left discussed before being implemented unless applying the WP:Bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. And if it's not already clear, I do sympathize with your efforts on this matter.

Cavann, we really shouldn't be relying on a single study for this authoritative statement. In fact, per WP:MEDRS (which does apply to aspects of this article because this article is partly a psychology/psychiatric topic), review sources are preferred over primary sources. Secondary sources are generally preferred over primary sources throughout Misplaced Pages, per WP:Primary. Also, though I agreed with your clarification of what "shared environment" means, an argument can be made that we shouldn't clarify anything that isn't clear from the source. Since I don't yet have full access to that source, I can't see how they are using "shared environment." Maybe you do/can. It's true that with regard to a person being who they are (how they think and their behavior), "shared environment" usually means parenting influences. But I state "usually" in this case because, as this source (which isn't specifically about sexual orientation) states, "Of course, the 'shared environment' of behavior genetics should not be equated with the 'family environment' as it is commonly conceptualized in the social sciences, because the shared environment includes those factors from beyond the bounds of the family which contribute to sibling similarity (e.g., schools and neighborhoods)." That stated, I'm not interested in pressing any further on that sourcing matter. If that statement and source stay, they stay. Flyer22 (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

That specific study is inline with review studies, so it is not making an authoritative statement by itself. It's just there to provide more detail. I do have access to the article:

To study the sources of individual differences, we used univariate twin modeling based on contingency tables for same-sex sexual behavior between twins in MZ and DZ pairs. We tested a model where observed phenotypic variance was assumed to result from the sum of additive genetic effects, shared or familial environmental effects, and unique environmental effects. The model was fitted with maximum likelihood estimation using the Mx structural modeling program (Neale, 1999). Since same-sex behavior may have different etiology in men and women (Bailey et al., 2000), we included only same-sex twin pairs in the model-fitting analyses.......It has been suggested that individual differences in heterosexual and homosexual behavior result from unique environmental factors such as prenatal exposure to sex hormones, progressive maternal immunization to sex-specific proteins, or neurodevelopmental instability (Rahman, 2005). Although the unique environmental variance component also includes measurement error, the present results support the notion that the individual-specific environment does indeed influence sexual preference.

Cavann (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Violence against Gays and Lesbians

11.3 Violence against gays and lesbians heading seems to be misleading, it says very clearly in the FBI report "The term victim may refer to a person, business, institution, or society as a whole". Yet under this heading is the terse statement Sixty-one percent of these attacks were against gay men. It seems to imply that all of these crimes were against individuals, when it could have been a business or institution owned by a gay man or men, this is misleading or slanting the information given by the FBI. Then it goes on to inflame this misleading information by inserting the experience of the individual Matthew Shepard. This seems to be intentional misinformation given to misinform the general public who uses Misplaced Pages as a resource.

• Delisted good articles
• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class ethics articles
• Mid-importance ethics articles
• Ethics task force articles
• B-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• High-importance sociology articles
• B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Top-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• B-Class psychology articles
• Top-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists, unused