Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:56, 13 August 2019

Template:Vital article

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. Sociology Mid‑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 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. 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. 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 This article has had a peer review which is now archived. 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 This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sddone01 (article contribs).

Removal of recent addition

I removed the following, recent addition: "Modern sex researchers believe that Kinsey overestimated the prevalence of same-sex behavior." The term "modern sex researchers" has no meaning without explanation, especially because of the broadness of the term "modern". See Modern history and modernity. I wasn't quite correct in stating that the term "modern" refers to anything since the 18th century, but the term does have a very broad application; "modern history" can be understood to begin with the early 16th century. I suggest to the user who added the content that it be rewritten before being submitted again. If all "modern sex researchers" means is J. Michael Bailey and researchers who agree with him, then please just add something to that effect. "Modern sex researchers" as a term for Bailey and people who agree with him is unacceptable promotional language, I think. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand your concerns about the term 'modern' and can instead say 'more recent' or something like that.

Regarding Kinsey, the Bailey et al. paper is far from alone. See for example Lehmiller 2017 on pages 35 and 147, and Balthazart 2012 on p. 9. Lehmiller and other sources usually cite Kinsey with the 37% figure, so where the current source gets 46% from will need further investigation and should possibly be replaced for being misleading. Any claim that Kinsey's estimates are still thought accurate would need a cite. Also, the sentence about Kinsey's dislike of the word bisexual seems tangential and undue.

It is not clear what you mean by 'Bailey and those who agree with him.' The Bailey et al paper is just the kind of secondary source preferred by WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. It had six authors, one of which was a humanities scholar, and another one was Lisa Diamond, who would certainly not have agreed to lowball the prevalence of bisexuality. Ritch Savin-Williams critiqued a few things in that paper, but did not challenge most of it. If there exist any scientific researchers who disagree with Bailey et al's conclusions, I have yet to hear of them. Balthazart (linked above) and LeVay (linked below) agree with them as well.

The last paragraph stating "there is large variation in the prevalence of bisexuality between different cultures" does not represent scientific opinion as a whole. I looked at that paper; while it does technically say that it varies between cultures from very little to universal, it also concluded, "Nevertheless, there seem to be some commonalities in the data. Exclusive or predominant heterosexuality is most common, followed by predominant or exclusive homosexuality; bisexuality is least common." Researchers have criticized using the Sambia to comment on sexual orientation, since their homosexual behavior takes place under extreme coercion. See our article on Sambia Sexual Culture and the paragraphs starting with Giles and McConaghy (I have personally read the sources and can vouch for the accuracy of our material).

That paragraph, along with Kinsey's alleged 46%, is extremely misleading in implying that bisexual attractions are very common and/or that other cultures have high rates of bisexual orientation. The Bailey et al review states, "We expect that in all cultures the vast majority of individuals are sexually predisposed exclusively to the other sex (i.e., heterosexual) and that only a minority of individuals are sexually predisposed (whether exclusively or non-exclusively) to the same sex." LeVay states on p. 14 that "heterosexuality is far and away the most common orientation among both men and women." The context shows he says this in contrast with homosexuality and bisexuality. He is well aware of other cultures and discusses them on pages 19-26 and 35. Balthazart makes the same point about sexual orientation in general, though being less specific about bisexuality, on pages 13-14. Note too the overwhelming similarity between the prevalence graphs in Bailey et al, in LeVay p. 14, and Balthazart p. 10, all being based on different sources. Regarding men, the rate of male same-sex behavior is at most 20% in some cultures (aside from irrelevant outliers like the Sambia). The World Health Organization estimates between 3 and 16%.

I think the above makes clear that scientists and researchers do not believe that sexual orientation varies much between cultures, but that rates of acting on attractions do. A comparison of that with the current material reveals it to be misleading and inadvertantly cherry-picked. -Crossroads- (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The material on Kinsey reads,

' Kinsey himself disliked the use of the term bisexual to describe individuals who engage in sexual activity with both males and females, preferring to use bisexual in its original, biological sense as hermaphroditic, stating, "Until it is demonstrated taste in a sexual relation is dependent upon the individual containing within his anatomy both male and female structures, or male and female physiological capacities, it is unfortunate to call such individuals bisexual." '

It is obviously not "tangential" because it directly concerns the subject of the article. Nor is it undue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The expression "Bailey and those who agree with him" is not ambiguous in meaning. It refers to J. Michael Bailey and those who share his views. Thus I do not understand what you mean by saying that it is "not clear". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You commented that, "where the current source gets 46% from will need further investigation and should possibly be replaced for being misleading". The source is clearly indicated. It is this archived web page from the Kinsey Institute website, which states, "Kinsey estimated that nearly 46% of the male population had engaged in both heterosexual and homosexual activities, or "reacted to" persons of both sexes, in the course of their adult lives." That in turn is cited to Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, page 656 (correctly, since the book does state what the web page states it states). In my view it would be better to simply cite Sexual Behavior in the Human Male directly, rather than cite a defunct web page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I changed it as explained in the edit summary. For the primacy of 37%, see here and here as examples. On top of that, there have been a multitude of studies done since Kinsey's day on rates of same-sex behavior and attraction, and they universally arrive at far lower figures than Kinsey. I explained this above. Frankly, an argument could be made for removing him entirely, for being out of date, misleading, and putting undue weight on figures now rejected. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Really. So you think that the article should contain no information about any views about bisexuality except those that are currently fashionable? You don't believe that it should contain information about what an extremely influential past writer thought, so that readers can have some understanding of the history of thinking about bisexuality? What an utterly preposterous thing to suggest. Perhaps you should try respecting the intelligence of readers of the article, instead of worrying that they will wind up believing something that you consider wrong, due to the article simply mentioning some view you disagree with. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

In a section titled "Demographics and Prevalence", no, wrong historical views are not appropriate. Kinsey is already mentioned under "Kinsey scale". Given your comments about "Bailey and people who agree with him" and "currently fashionable", I get the impression of disliking what current sexual science has found. "Currently fashionable" is also a tacit admission that Kinsey is indeed out of date. I don't see any possible way that "current fashion" in science could change back to thinking that anyone could be bisexual under the right circumstances. I could just as easily say, 'perhaps you should try not misleading our readers?' It is not about what I think, but what RS think, and I cited 6 of them above, which you totally ignored. You don't want our readers to come away from this with the idea that homosexuality and bisexuality are learned and hence changeable and preventable, do you? -Crossroads- (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The views in question are mentioned as having been expressed in a book published in 1948. Maybe you think that readers of the article are so stupid that they will automatically assume that something that someone concluded in 1948 must still be the current thinking. I on the other hand would prefer to assume that readers are not that stupid and won't automatically assume that. You might want to consider that you aren't going to change my mind by making comments that are rude, presumptuous, and make totally false assumptions about what I believe. Your comment "You don't want our readers to come away from this with the idea that homosexuality and bisexuality are learned and hence changeable and preventable, do you?" is inflammatory rubbish that raises an irrelevant issue. None of the material concerns issues such as whether "homosexuality and bisexuality are learned". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The rude and presumptuous comments started here. We are not here to test our readers' intelligence with misleading information (they don't know why the survey results are skewed, and being from 1948 has nothing to do with it). Don't forget you also reverted my change to the paragraph arguing for high cross-cultural variation. And if it does vary across time and place, then it is changeable/learned. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I do not believe that this relevant information should be removed because of your assertions that it is misleading. You are free to argue that it is misleading if you like, but you have not made a convincing case, just assertions. As for your other comments, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. As I said, none of the material concerns issues such as whether homosexuality and bisexuality are learned. Your comment "if it does vary across time and place, then it is changeable/learned" is a piece of nonsense (just to start with, "learned" and "changeable" don't mean the same thing, and latter doesn't in any sense follow from the former). Please don't confuse discussion by raising irrelevant issues. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator, perhaps, as a compromise, we should reformat the History section so that it includes 1940s content and similar older research? Or create another section for material that is older, but doesn't concern text about the ancient aspects currently seen in the History section? Maybe a subsection called "Older research"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to the material being placed in a different section. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I have taken Flyer's suggestion (thank you) and moved it to History. I made some other adjustments, some of which are so it fits in there. Also, I have added some info to the demographics section. Looking back over the conversation, I can see that I played a role in not maintaining a high standard of civility, and I do apologize for that. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

the problems of underlying ambiguity

After a few reads, I have the impression that this article is perpetuating intellectual dishonesty, if not gross ineptitude. Here are some points central to the page, and a few ways they obviously cannot coexist.

There are clearly individuals who do not fit into the hetero-or-homo dilemma, but as well refuse being forced neatly into the official third pigeonhole —

1.8 percent of men ages 18–44 considered themselves bisexual, 2.3 percent homosexual, and 3.9 percent as "something else".

Among these Elsers are those who favor other tags (such as pansexual) by which they clearly intend to set themselves apart as "not bisexual." Note that in the above example the self-identified Elsers establish that they outnumbered self-identified bisexuals by more than 2:1.

Then the WP article toddles onward with

Sometimes the phrase "bisexual umbrella" is used to describe any nonmonosexual behaviors, attractions, and identities, usually for purposes of collective action and challenging monosexist cultural assumptions.

And without further reference to any umbrella, that's how the term bisexual is used throughout the article, even though the Elsers have been presented as outnumbering the (for lack of a better term) Classic bisexuals. (The "action and challenging" part really needs to be stricken, as without direct attribution such as in a quotation it's editorializing. I'll get to it.)

In addition to inflating (perhaps greatly) the number of individuals who can be estimated to belong in the bisexual slot, and denying individuals the right to choose their own categorization, the term is a magnet for post hoc conjecture: Nobody is allowed to identify as gay or lesbian or heterosexual if it's been established or even conjectured they they have had even the least little attraction, at any time in their lives, both toward a female and toward a male.

Someone can be happily het all their lives, then find The Right One and self-identify as queer; conversely, The Right One might result in a switch from gay to het. (Such are the conundrums of Monogamism and binary sexuality, apparently.) But random busybody can pop up and declare the individual is really bi no matter what the target happens to state (or believe) about themselves, and therefore they can merrily be included (perhaps against their will) in The Great Bisexual Community.

This seems akin to using homosexual to encompass everyone who has not always and forever been "100% heterosexual" (by whatever random standard). It's certainly NOT W'pedia's place to inflate the stats, no matter how well-intentioned the ballot-stuffing.

FOR STARTERS: Seeing as the article is entitled Bisexuality, and the article Pansexuality has a well-established existence, then the extensive crowing in Bisexuality about pansexuality as if it's "pretty much the same thing as bisexuality" ought to be severely reduced. Similar cases can readily made as well for Queer etc.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about with regard to "the Elsers," but pansexuality in relation to bisexuality has WP:Due weight (just a sentence in the lead, and just a small paragraph in the "Sexual orientation, identity, and behavior" section) in the article. When reliable sources say that they are "pretty much the same thing," especially when going by the broader definition of bisexuality (which should be in the lead), then we report on that with due weight. We can see that the Pansexuality article is currently mostly about equating and distinguishing pansexuality with/from bisexuality, and that's because sources on pansexuality are so often concerned with that.

As for the word "sometimes," I think you should consider all of what WP:Weasel words states. And what Template:Who states as well. We are not going to stop using the word "sometimes" on Misplaced Pages, especially when the source uses that same exact wording. What are you expecting "sometimes" to be replaced with? "50% of the time"? And as for "the phrase 'bisexual umbrella' is used to describe any nonmonosexual behaviors, attractions, and identities, usually for purposes of collective action and challenging monosexist cultural assumptions." It is sourced. We go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, like I've told you times before. If the wording does not align with what the source states, then we can fix that. If you have better wording that aligns with what the source states, we can consider using that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The main problem at hand: If pansexuality is indeed "the same as bisexuality," then it does not need its own article. If it's NOT "the same" then the free use of the term in this article needs to be drastically reduced.

Choose either, or state a third path. Lacking that, and in consideration of the other article, I am justified in drastically curtailing use of "pansexual" as a synonym here.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

So you are continuing your "let me go from article to article and complain about it based on my personal opinions and a misuse of guidelines and policies" approach. You are continuing with your "do what I say" and "my way or the highway" attitude. Okay, I will address that on your talk page soon.

The main problem at hand is that you clearly don't understand WP:Notability, or that more than one definition of a term should be covered in an article when more than one definition exists (as long as the definition is not undue), and that we employ WP:Summary style. I shouldn't have to state this, but sources may say that a term means the same thing to some and something different to others. We are allowed to cover that, regardless of whatever contradiction a reader or editor believes it to be. A number of topics on Misplaced Pages have suptopics. Pansexuality is defined by various reliable sources as a subset of bisexuality. Pansexuality has received enough attention in reliable sources to warrant its own Misplaced Pages article. Because bisexuality is defined both in a binary way and in a non-binary way, that aspects belongs in the lead of this article and lower in this article. It just so happens that the non-binary way it is defined (with the exception of "more than one gender") equates to pansexuality. Reliable sources are clear about that. Therefore, it is due to mention pansexality by name in the lead and cover it somewhat lower in the article. Extensive detail on pansexuality is supposed to be covered in its own Misplaced Pages article, but we employ WP:Summary style by also mentioning it in this article. You are not justified in the least in drastically curtailing use of pansexual as a synonym here.

And here, we can see that you removed sourced material, stating, "Removed unsupported studies -- do not reinstate without direct citations." You were reverted by Crossroads1, who tweaked the matter in the process. Do not claim that something is unsourced unless you know it's unsourced. If you are expecting a paragraph to source every sentence using the same citation, then you should review WP:Citation overkill. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

another reason that I am certain there are HUGE holes in this article

I mean, c'mon, I've been researching this since the '80s…

No mention what-so-ever of the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid.

F'gossakes, what's the title of the freakin' book? Could we possibly be more basic? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Top-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• Old requests for LGBTQ+ studies peer review
• 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
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists, unused