Talk:Antisperm antibodies

Alexey Karetnikov UNAIDS and "homosexual men" vs "MSM"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Alexey Karetnikov UNAIDS and its recommendations, refer to HIV, and not to reproductive medicine Путеец (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Recommendations of UNAIDS refer to any use of an epidemiological term MSM versus a sexological term homosexual, not just in relation to HIV. The term men who have sex with men describes males who have sex with males, regardless of whether or not they also have sex with women or have a personal or social gay or bisexual identity. This concept is useful because it also includes men who self-identify as heterosexual but who have sex with other men. [1] As you can see, there is no any reference here that would explicitly say that this concept applies only to HIV.
• Restpero 2013 uses the term homosexual when referring to Mashburn 1994, a very old primary source that had been published before UNAIDS introduced the epidemiological term MSM. The latter term is more correct here, being epidemiological. Using an epidemiological term is preferred here, because epidemiology studies not only transmission of diseases, but also their causes. Epidemiology is the study of how often diseases occur in different groups of people and why. [2] As you can see from here, epidemiology is not just about infectious diseases; it applies to any diseases. The importance of epidemiological data (without any relation to any infection) in studying male reproductive failure is also emphasized in a review by Sikka and Hellstrom 2016 [3].
• Please stop adding outdated terminology, used in a review written by specialists in reproductive medicine, who are unfamiliar with epidemiological terms, especially considering that the impact factor of the journal Actas Urologicas Españolas is very low [4]:
• 2016/2017 Impact Factor : 1.181
• 2015 Impact Factor : 0.274
• 2014 Impact Factor : -NA-
• 2013 Impact Factor : 1.148
• 2012 Impact Factor : 1.144
• 2011 Impact Factor : 0.455
• 2010 Impact Factor : 0.274. Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

OK. You can add an additional extension "MSM" to the quote. But the quotation must be passed exactly as in the original. In addition, all modern sources for reproductology use this definition. But from the article this is somehow removed. Путеец (talk) 04:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• "all modern sources for reproductology" - I don't see that "all modern sources would be using the term "homosexual men". The reviews Sikka 2016, Bienek 2016, Zini 2011 [5] don't mention either "homosexual men" or MSM. The 2017 book you are referring to is behind the pay wall, so the information from that book can't be verified. (Actually, this book was published in 2016, not in 2017 [6].) Restpero 2013 refers to Marshburn 1994, a very old primary source. In general, experts in reproductive medicine cannot be considered reliable sources for the correct use of terms from the field of sexual orientation studies (e.g., homosexual) and terms from the field of epidemiology (e.g., MSM), if these terms are used in a way that contradicts other biomedical fields. For example, the terms homosexual and homosexuality don't belong to medicine at all. Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Book "Immune Infertility" (2017) | SpringerLink. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-40788-3 use "homosexual men" Путеец (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• The 2017 book you are referring to is behind the pay wall, so the information from that book can't be verified. (Actually, this book was published in 2016, not in 2017 [7].) Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 03:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Alexey Karetnikov, I'm one of the editors who commented at WP:Med about this. I understand where you are coming from on avoiding the term homosexual. This has been discussed times before at WP:LGBT and once at WP:Med; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 40#LGBT instead of homosexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 43#Style guideline of gay vs homosexual, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 46#Guidelines regarding gay/lesbian vs. homosexual, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 47#Replacing "homosexuality" with "LGBT" in article titles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 56#Use of the term "homosexual.", and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 53#"Homosexual" vs. "Gay" – Wikipedia policy?.

The discussions show that use of homosexual is a case-by-case matter. If the sources state "homosexual," I don't think we should trade that out for "MSM." This is because the two terms are not synonyms and we should be adhering to WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. If it was a matter of using "gay" instead of "homosexual," I would support that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• "where you are coming from on avoiding the term" - I believe it does not really matter where I am coming from, because I do not have any problems at all with the term homosexual, unless it is used by somebody instead of the term MSM in the context of biomedical literature. As I have already mentioned here and also on WP:MED, the term MSM has been introduced into medicine already after the old primary sources in question had been published. Some contemporary reviews do repeat the term homosexual when citing those old primary sources. Also, some other users have expressed opinions similar to mine on WP:MED. In relation to this, I do not quite understand now why there is any need to swap this discussion from WP:MED to this page, unless you transfer the whole thread from WP:MED to here and inform all the participants about this transfer :) Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• those old primary sources? Flyer22 Reborn this is a lie. I have already shown a screenshot of the proof that the term homosexual is used in modern sources, even when primary research is not cited. 2017 — [8] 2014 — [9]. I propose a compromise option: give an exact quote, but add it with the term MSM in brackets. Путеец (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2017‎ (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Alexey Karetnikov, it is true that it should not matter where you are coming from; this is because we are supposed to follow the sources. I was under the impression that the sources use the word homosexual and that you were using MSM in place of the sources because you find the term homosexual outdated and personally object to the term. After all, the WP:Med discussion did go in that direction -- of talking about outdated and offensive terminology. My point is that it is not up to us to forgo the source's terminology and use our own in place of the source's terminology, unless we actually are using synonyms. If a study is specifically about gay/homosexual men, we should not be stating "MSM" in its place; this is because "MSM" covers more than just gay/homosexual men. There is no transfer of discussion. There is a discussion in two different places, and I decided to comment in both places. In the case of that WP:Med discussion, we had two editors focusing on the history of the term MSM and thoughts on when to use it, another editor who stated "if the sources explicitly refer to gays and homosexuals, we shouldn't swap these to 'MSM', as this is a distortion that fails WP:V," and another editor who stated that he does not "know enough about the topic to determine if there are important references in another language that should definitely be cited in the article." I agreed with the editor who cited WP:V. If we were to take this matter to the WP:Verifiability (WP:V) talk page or start a WP:RfC on it, others would agree with me and that editor as well. And, for the record, sexual orientation falls under "biomedical literature." A simple Google search of "Sexual orientation biomedical literature" shows that. And the terms heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual are still used in this biomedical literature. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• I have already explained my position in sufficient detail, and I do not see any need to repeat my reasoning. I am also very well aware of the categories the term "sexual orientation" falls under. Also, this discussion has been closed by Jytdog (talk · contribs). Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Alexey Karetnikov, your explanation does not trump our WP:Verifiability policy. And if you are violating it, that needs to be remedied. If you are adhering to it, then good. Jytdog is not an administrator and this is not WP:ANI. But if you are violating the WP:Verifiability policy, we will find ourselves at WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ASA are found in 3%–12% of men seeking evaluation of infertility

These strange percentages (3%–12%) are taken from the old source. I delete these values, replacing them with the 2017 source. In all other sources, this data does not confirm. I found this in a single place: https://books.google.com.ua/books?isbn=1139483242 Larry I. Lipshultz, ‎Stuart S. Howards, ‎Craig S. Niederberger - 2009 - ‎Medical Ultimately, a cascade of inflammatory changes leads to impaired sperm function. Antisperm antibodies Antisperm antibodies (ASA) are present in 3—12% of men seeking evaluation at infertility clinics. ASA interfere with fertilization via several mechanisms: agglutination of sperm, prevention of cervical. Alexey Karetnikov please do not add unverified information to the article, especially copy-paste from old sources. In this regard, this source (Sikka and Hellstrom (2016)) can be considered not authoritative, and do not use it. Путеец (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• This "strange percentage" comes from a 2016 review - independent source written by experts in reproductive medicine. This recent review is a very reliable source. Also, it is published in a free journal, unlike your 2017 book, which is behind the pay wall. So the information from Sikka 2016 should stay where it is. Also, the 2009 review is not an old source, compared to the primary source from 1990s which Restpero 2013 refers to when mentioning "homosexual men". Moreover, the question arises about the source for the 2017 book (both for percentage and for using the term "homosexual men"; however, this book is behind the pay wall, so the information from that book can't be verified. (Actually, this book was published in 2016, not in 2017 [10].) Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• This strange percentage Sikka and Hellstrom (2016) quoted from the source: "Turek PJ. Immunopathology and infertility. Mosby Year Book; Philadelphia, PA 1997". This is an old, inaccessible and little quoted source. But you prefer not to show the source of quoting. I delete this outdated information. Contemporary authors, give data indicated in the first paragraph of 12-13% + ideopathic infertility, which also may be associated with ASA. Путеец (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• "old, inaccessible and little quoted source. But you prefer not to show the source of quoting. I delete this outdated information. Contemporary authors, give data" - Very interesting approach. It does not matter at all, what kind of sources (old, inaccessible, little quoted) the authors of recent reviews are referring to. This information is from a 2016 (very contemporary) review, written by experts and published in a peer-reviewed journal with IF of about 2.5. This information has been thoroughly analyzed by the authors of the review. This review is also open access, unlike the 2017 book you have cited.
• To follow your logic, shall we remove all the information based on the 2017 book, because this book is behind the pay wall?
• Please return the information based on Sikka 2016 back to the article.
• Since the authors of the Sikka 2016 review clearly have different opinion on the quantitative data, compared to the authors of the 2017 book, I tag the sections containing the information based on the 2017 book as requiring adjustment to a neutral point of view.
• Since the 2017 book is behind the pay wall, I tag the fragments containing the information based on the 2017 book as requiring verification. Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

You violated this rule: WP:AGF. If I quote from a source, then they are there. In different reviews (2014 doi:10.1111/aji.12272): "The incidence of ASA in infertile couples is 9–55%, depending on the reporting center. Antisperm antibodies have been described in 8–21% of the infertile men (autoantibodies) and in 6–43% of infertile women (isoantibodies). Moreover, ASA from infertile patients may be direc-ted to dissimilar sperm antigens, and/or clusters of antigens, or possess different antigen-binding charac-teristics than those from fertile individuals." The value of about 15% occurs most often, for male infertility. These studies involved heterosexual couples who wanted to have children. Homosexuals would change this proportion. Путеец (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• [11] [12] [13] This is evidence of the accuracy of my citation Путеец (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• Since the average values of the survey in 2014 correspond to the data of the survey in 2017, I delete the templates from the article. In the article [14]: "Eight studies were identified, including 238 cases of ASA positive infertility male and 929 ASA negative controls". Summarizing the results of several studies, the exact value for ASA is 20,4%. I propose to use the data of 2017 as averages. Путеец (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Flyer22 Reborn, I propose to remove the template of neutrality and weight. The prevalence in populations is proved by sources, and additional data:

1. "Immunological infertility is assumed to be the cause of infertility in 9-36% of the concerned couples. ASA were present in sera of 30% women with unexplained infertility. In this study ASA have been identified in 10-15% of men experiencing infertility and 15-20% of women with unexplained infertility. The frequency of ASA in fertile population of women and men is <2%. In infertile men and women ASA are present in 5-25% of individuals." [15]
2. Data on the frequency of ASA in infertile men have shown high variability (from 7% to 44%), depending on the method applied [16]
3. "The incidence of ASA in infertile couples is 9–55%, depending on the reporting center. Antisperm antibodies have been described in 8–21% of the infertile men (autoantibodies) and in 6–43% of infertile women (isoantibodies). [17]

The source used in the article (2017) has more weighted and relevant information. 10–30% of infertile couples, and in males, about 12–13% (20,4% in meta-analysis[5]) --Путеец (talk) 07:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Jytdog, Legitimus, please look at my proposal and evidence. --Путеец (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Flyer22 Reborn, Look here please --Путеец (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Take the matter to WP:Med. I've been concerned enough about your edits to different articles to want more eyes on them. Jytdog currently no longer edits Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Even when in 60% of healthy men ASA have been found in serum

Alexey Karetnikov When quoting, we must check the validity. You cite an unverified quote from the review.

I.S. Henao,A.P. Cadavid,J.E. Ossa Autoanticuerpos antiespermatozoides e infertilidad Iatreia, 10 (1997): cited Tung KS, Cooke WR Jr, McCarty TA, Robitaille P. Human sperm antigens and antisperm antibodies. I. Age related incidence of antisperm antibodies. Clin Exp Immunol. 1976:

The exact prevalence of sperm antibodies in a particular population is difficult to assess with accuracy because there is no standardization of assay or site from which the specimen is chosen (i.e., sperm versus cervical mucus). It has been estimated that approximately 60% of adult sera possess ASA, but the titers are low (<1:16).

As you can see, the source of this percentage is not quoted reliably, and from the old source (1976). Please check the accuracy of the data entered! Путеец (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• In Wikipedia, we do not do this sort of "verification" that you imply. The only verification we do here is the following: 1) whether the source of information is a recent review - In this case, it is a 2013 review; 2) whether the review has been published in a journal indexed in MEDLINE - In this case, it is; 3) whether the information added to the WP article corresponds to the information described by the authors of the review. We do not work with sources analyzed by the authors of a review. Doing otherwise would mean original synthesis. All the conclusions and data from sources cited by the authors of reviews are analyzed by the authors of these reviews who are the experts in their respective field. It is not up to individual editors of WP to make their own analysis of sources cited by recent reviews. In regard to this, the WP rules clearly state: Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering any conclusions made by secondary sources. Synthesis of published material advancing a position is original research, and Wikipedia is not a venue for open research. Controversies or uncertainties in medicine should be supported by reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. Primary sources should not be aggregated or presented without context in order to undermine proportionate representation of opinion in a field. If material can be supported by either primary or secondary sources – the secondary sources should be used. [18]
• Based on the points above, please return the information based on Restpero 2013.
• Please see also my comment in the section above.
• Also, please avoid using an exclamation point in a conversation. This helps to improve the atmosphere of any discussion. Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

In a recent review, other data: "However, these antibodies are also present in approximately 1–2.5 % of fertile men [ 32 , 33 ] and in 4 % of fertile women.".Explain the reason why you are trying to include a false thesis in an article, even after I proved an error? Путеец (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

What the sources state

Jytdog, this is not confusion or an error on my part. This is me trying to discuss what the sources state and trying to make it clear to so-called newbies that we follow what the sources state. We have Alexey Karetnikov stating one thing and Путеец stating another. A discussion about what the sources state has everything to do with this article. Please stop shutting down discussion. I am involving myself in this discussion with these two editors to figure this matter out, especially since I am stern about following WP:Verifiability and am well-versed in sexual orientation topics. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• According to WP policies, all participants are equal, so everyone here should be treated as equally "well-versed in sexual orientation topics". Best regards, Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Alexey Karetnikov, no Wikipedia policies state that. All that I am stating is that I know what I am talking about on these matters, which means that I can quite easily combat the nonsense that "MSM" should be used in place of "homosexual" if the sources don't state that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• "I know what I am talking about on these matters, which means that I can quite easily combat the nonsense" - I believe not only you know what they are talking about, but also those users who have expressed opinions similar to mine on WP:MED. Also, please try to avoid using such strong words as nonsense. Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

What editors at WP:Med stated that we should forgo our WP:Verifiability policy? I know that one implied it. But we follow what the sources state, plain and simple. As for nonsense, "MSM" does not mean the same thing as "gay" or "homosexual," and if it's not enough for me to make this clear to you, then I will be bringing in editors from the WP:Verifiability talk page to enlighten you. And if that is not enough, then a WP:RfC will settle it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I try to protect the most important right of LGBT people - to know the consequences of sexual practices. What I think about Aleksey, I wrote here [19]. Read the doctor's answer. I'm not experienced in Wikipedia, and English is bad for me. The removal of the word "homosexual" is done to ensure that users do not find health consequences in Wikipedia. And this is a violation of the rights of LGBT people. I ask for help in creating a request for arbitration. [20] [21] [22] Путеец (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

No use for WP:Arbitration. They wouldn't take this case anyway. Right now, I will consult Legitimus via email for access to these sources to see what they state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

look links [17] [18] [19] Путеец (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Friends, pay attention to the textbook of 2014 https://paste.pics/edit/40a7c6385c19999275d420ac8d512285 (Rao, Kamini A; Carp, Howard J. A; Fischer, Robert (2014). Principles and practice of assisted reproductive technology. ISBN 9350907364. OCLC 865062991.)

Other quotes from different sources:

"During the 1980s, experimental studies in rabbits demonstrated that nontraumatic weekly deposition of sperm in the rectum led to the formation of ASA [ 80 , 81 ]. Taking into account this evidence, it seems logical that unprotected anal intercourse in homosexual men could constitute a risk factor for ASA formation. Wolff and Schill [ 36 ] evaluated the incidence of ASA in the serum of different groups of men. Four percent of dermatologic patients ( n = 223), 9.6 % of andrologic patients ( n = 178), and 28.6 % of homosexual men ( n = 42) were positive for IgG and/or IgM antibodies. They concluded that there was a high incidence of ASA among homosexual men, probably because of contact of spermatozoa with the immune system by passive anal intercourse. Five years later, Mulhall et al. [ 82 ] reported a 10 % prevalence of ASA in homosexual men and 17 % in those who had practiced unprotected anal receptive intercourse in the previous 6 months." https://paste.pics/0c960e7447887e29318e0fccbac573f2

"ASA occur in both men and women, and also in homosexual men" https://paste.pics/322fabae85cd8332c0576cdcc41069ff

"There is a high incidence of Antisperm Antibodies among homosexual men (up to 28.6% comparing to 0–2% in the general population), probably due to the contact of spermatozoa with the immune system during receptive anal intercourse"

"Many causal factors found to date include: previous urogenital surgery, vasectomy, inflammatory events localized to the genital tract and/or accessory glands, trauma to epipidymis or deferens, congenital obstruction of the vasa deferentia, infection, orchitis, testicular cancer, varicocele, cryptorchidism, testicular torsion, bone marrow disorders, and homosexuality."

etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Путеец (talk • contribs) 19:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Путеец, just wait until we review everything. No need to keep repeating or adding on more that doesn't push the discussion forward. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Specific content and source

The article currently has:

According to Restpero and Cardona-Maya (2013), Оral and rectal administration of semen triggers the production of antibodies in serum of men who have sex with men (MSM) and in genital secretions in rodents.

References

The source says: "Oral and rectal administration of semen triggers the production of antibodies in serum of homosexual men and in genital secretions in rodents" and this is sourced to PMID 8174713 (from 1994), which I have requested from interlibrary loan. (the content is COPYVIO but that is apparently the least of our worries right now)

I'll note that the article is an English translation of one originally published in Spanish doi:10.1016/j.acuro.2012.11.003 which I have also requested via interlibrary loan.

I am pretty dubious that the content has anything to do with identity, but rather behavior. but we'll see. If anybody has those two refs please provide what they say on this matter. Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Jytdog. As noted above, I have also consulted Legitimus via email on the matter. Even though the sources are focusing on behavior, my point is that "MSM" covers a broader group and we should not be using that if the sources don't. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Legitimus is a mental health provider, not an expert on the matter in question. Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Did you or did you not state "all participants are equal, so everyone here should be treated as equally" in the section immediately above this one? Part of the discussion is about sexual orientation anyway, and many mental health providers deal with that subject. In any case, since you read Legitimus's user page, you should know that he easily has access to journal sources, which is why I contacted him on the matter. WP:PAYWALL is usually not an issue for him. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Flyer, please say more about this "point" with regard to this topic in particular. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I've already made my about point about WP:Verfiabillity and WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Not a good answer. We are not parrots here, we summarize, using our brains. For example although the Immune Infertility 2017 (ISBN 978-3-319-40788-3) book uses only the term "homosexual" and never says MSM in any chapter, it says " During the 1980s, experimental studies in rabbits demonstrated that nontraumatic weekly deposition of sperm in the rectum led to the formation of ASA. Taking into account this evidence, it seems logical that unprotected anal intercourse in homosexual men could constitute a risk factor for ASA formation. (p142)" ..."In conclusion, there is not enough evidence to support homosexuality as a risk factor for ASA formation; however, taking into account clinical evidence and basic research studies, it seems highly probable that if this association exists the primary site of ASA production would be the distal gastrointestinal mucosa." (p 143) In other words this is a behavioral and physiological thing. Men who identify as gay do not have magically different immune reactions. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Following our rules is a good enough answer. Either way, the terms homosexuality and homosexual do not only refer to sexual orientation or sexual identity. They refer to behavior as well. Whether or not the sources are specifically focusing on the identity of the men when stating "homosexual men" is not for us to state. It does not seem that they are, but it still is not for us to use the broader "MSM" term in its place if the studies focused on homosexual men rather than men who have sex with men in general. Like I stated to Путеец below, if the sources are about men engaging in anal sex with other men, stating "men who engage in anal sex with other men" is more accurate. Not all MSM have anal sex, and "MSM" does not automatically equate to "men who have anal sex with other men." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. Please note that the source above says oral and rectal. Please note that the primary clinical source underlying most of this is the Wolff/Schill paper which is from 1985 ((PMID 4054346) Jytdog (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

This is an axiom in immunology, which is confirmed by quoting and using in books. Путеец (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jytdog, in that case, I think it's best that we state "men who engage in anal sex and oral sex with other men." I understand wanting to be simple with the wording and simply stating "MSM," but, again, "MSM" covers a wider group of men who may or may not be having anal sex (with other men or with women). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Homosexuality in itself is not the cause of the formation of ASA. But 95% of MSM use anal sex, which is the cause. But the textbook, which I screenshot, indicates exactly homosexuality, as the cause of the ASA. Путеец (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Please stop repeating yourself. We can all read. And it is not a "textbook" in any case. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Путеец, in what way are you using the term homosexuality? If you are using it in terms of sexual orientation, your comment is dubious. If you are using it to mean "anal sex," that is flawed wording. You should simply state "men who engage in anal sex with other men." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I just quote the source exactly. But I think that in addition it is necessary to indicate (MSM). Путеец (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello I was called in by Flyer22 to verify what these sources say. To address one issue brought up above, my actual occupation is irrelevant. What matters is I can back up things I say with sources, and I have access to full text sources that would otherwise be inaccessible to most due to paywalls. Since this is an tangled web of a conversation, I'm just going to stick with providing the requested phrasing from the sources.

Now, if I'm reading right, what is requested is the phrasing used in Restpero and Cardona-Maya (2013). It states "Oral and rectal administration of semen triggers the production of antibodies in serum of homosexual men and in genital secretions in rodents."

As stated above, this is an English translation from Spanish, which I also was able to retrieve. The same sentence in the original Spanish is "la administración oral y rectal de esperma resulta en la producciónde anticuerpos en las secreciones genitales de roedores y enlos sueros de los hombres homosexuales."

Both versions attribute this statement to Marshburn and Kutteh (1994). I do not know if there is a specific line from Marshburn anyone wants to know, but the text does use the term "homosexual." At times it specifies "Male homosexuals who participate in receptive anal intercourse." None of the texts use MSM from my quick text search.Legitimus (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Legitimus. The source stating "male homosexuals who participate in receptive anal intercourse" seems to be focusing on the act of anal sex. Above, I suggested that we state "men who engage in anal sex with other men" or "men who engage in anal sex and oral sex with other men" since not all MSM engage in the same sexual act. Some don't engage in anal sex. Some don't engage in oral sex, but oral sex is more prevalent among MSM than anal sex is, like this 2012 "Sexual Health: A Public Health Perspective" source, from McGraw-Hill Education (UK), page 91, that I've used on Wikipedia, makes clear. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

"Men who engage in anal sex or oral sex with other men" (it really should be "or") is OK, but it is unclear to me how this is significantly different from "men who have sex with men". This is getting a bit into the territory of the "I did not have sex with her" and "it depends on what 'is' is" Bill Clinton thing. Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, "men who have sex with men" is less accurate per what I stated above. It covers a larger group of men who may not be engaging in anal and/or oral sex with other men. "Men who have sex with men" is not a synonym for "anal sex" or "men who have anal sex and/or oral with other men." The sources in the case of this dispute are specifically focusing on the act of anal and/or oral sex, not on the men simply having sex with other men. I pointed to one source that makes it clear that not all MSM engage in anal sex. In fact, the source is clear that a survey showed that most of the men placed anal sex last when it comes to what sexual practices they engage in. Like this 2014 "Sexually Transmitted Infections - E-book" source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 1046, makes clear, "MSM can practice exclusively insertive anal sex, exclusively receptive anal sex, or not engage in anal intercourse at all." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I changed the text to this. I did wonder if it's needed since the "Causes" section mentions anal sex, but the edit I made at least makes it clear that it is specifically talking about men who have anal or oral sex with other men, rather than just men who have sex with men in general. Of course, the same "trauma and surgery, varicocele, infections, prostatitis, oncology" aspects that apply to heterosexual men apply to gay and bisexual men as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Legitimus, so that I know that I have the "anal or oral sex" aspect right for this edit, what does the 2017 "Chapter 14: Impact on Fertility Outcome. In Krause, Walter K.H.; Naz, Rajesh K. Immune Infertility: Impact of Immune Reactions on Human Fertility (2nd Edition ed.)" source state? This is the link that was given for it. And does it use "MSM"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

whatever. the change is good enough, with the exception, as Путеец says in the new section below, that women too can generate ASA from oral or rectal exposure.

And I already said above that the Springer book uses only "homosexual" and never says MSM or anything like that. I have the whole thing and can email to you if you want it. Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog is correct based on my copy. There is also no mention of oral sex among males that I see in my brief skim through (it's about 300 pages).Legitimus (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The Causes section mentions anal sex with regard to women; it states, "In women, spermatozoa in the genital tract after intercourse are not a factor in the production of antisperm antibodies. But this is possible with a trauma to the vaginal musccoa during the intercourse or the deposition of sperm in the gastrointestinal tract by oral or anal intercourse." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Legitimus, so I should remove "oral sex" for the part I edited? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I fixed it here. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

We commented at the same time. See what I stated below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog changed it to this. Should "or who perform oral sex on men" be changed to "or women who perform oral sex on men"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Legitimus, I have been sent a copy of two of the sources via email by Jytdog. Jytdog, because Legitimus stated above that "there is also no mention of oral sex among males that [he sees] in [his] brief skim through," I do wonder about this and this edit including "oral sex" with regard to male-male sex. But it seems that you have read a lot more of the material than Legitimus. So, Jytdog, is oral sex mentioned with regard to sex among males in addition to women having sex with men? Anyway, I will get around to reading the sources you sent me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Differences in the use of oral sex in men, women and rodents do not. In my opinion, despite the mention of oral sex as the cause of ASA, it can occur if the mucosa is damaged, or deep penetration to the glands. I doubt the possibility of forming ASA in a healthy mucosa. Путеец (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by your first sentence. I've asked Legitimus and Jytdog do the sources include oral sex with regard to male-male sex. This is because of what Legitimus stated above about anal sex, relaying that he only saw anal sex mentioned for male-male sex. They haven't yet answered here in this section or via email. Again, I will read the sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

remove content about contraception; no clear relevance

Jytdog This is a very important aspect of using antisperm antibodies for the depopulation of wild animals, and contraception. This is discussed in many sources. Please return. I can give you additional sources, but they can be primary. Путеец (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Source1 [23] ASA (naturally occurring, generated by animal immunization and/or of commercial origin) are invaluable tools to understand the molecular basis of fertilization, better diagnose/treat immunoinfertility and develop immunocontraceptive methods.
• Source2 [24] Secondly, because these antibodies can induce infertility they have the potential to be developed for contraceptive purposes in humans and also for the control of feral animal populations.

Путеец (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

All that the content said was "The authors of the updated book "Immune Infertity" (2017) say: "Contraceptive vaccines may provide a viable and valuable alternative that could fulfi ll most, if not all, of the properties of an ideal contraceptive. Fertility control by immune contraception is suggested to offer a long-term, effective and humane approach for reproduction control in captive animals as well as to reduce free-ranging wildlife populations"." which says nothing about ASA. Jytdog (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I gave evidence that it is ASA that is used in anti- fertile vaccines. Путеец (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog Look at sources 1 and 2 for possible inclusion in the article. Especially the source1. Путеец (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Anal sex in women also causes the formation of antisperm antibodies.

Anal sex in women also causes the formation of antisperm antibodies. The rectum of a woman does not differ from the rectum of a homosexual or rabbit. I believe that this must be brought back, for many, through ignorance, become barren. Путеец (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Quantitative data on prevalence of ASA in the Sikka 2016 review vs. the 2017 book

Dear Jytdog (talk · contribs), Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs) and Legitimus (talk · contribs), thank you for your hard work on improving the article. It already looks much better now.

What do you think about the difference in quantitative data on the prevalence of ASA between the Sikka 2016 review (it is already in the list of references) and the 2017 book? Since academic books usually take way much longer to be published, compared to journal reviews, the one-year difference in publication dates between these two sources is nothing. I have already heard the opinion of user Путеец on this, and now I would appreciate your thoughts. Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I join thanks for working on the article. I have already shown above that your sources refer to old, rarely quoted articles. These percentages do not correspond to all other sources of the article. But they are good for writing a section on the diagnosis of ASA. Please write this section. If they are not used, then they can be deleted, at the moment they are not sufficiently quoted, in addition, the quoted information is also in other sources. Путеец (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• This section is dedicated specifically to the difference in quantitative data on the prevalence of ASA between the Sikka 2016 review and the 2017 book, not to any other aspects of these reviews.
• "I have already shown above that your sources refer to old, rarely quoted articles" - You have not really shown anything, because we have not compared the publication dates between sources cited by Sikka 2016 and sources cited by the 2017 book. Without such a fair comparison, we simply do not have a complete picture. So far, you have simply failed to provide me with the publication dates of sources cited by the 2017 book. Please provide me, right here, in this section, with the publication dates for sources cited by the 2017 book, where these quantitative data on the prevalence of ASA are presented.
• As to "rarely quoted articles" and "at the moment they are not sufficiently quoted", in WP we do not really count a number of citations either for sources cited by reviews, or for reviews themselves (especially of a review has just recently been published, in 2016 or 2017). I find such a reasoning absolutely preposterous.
• The Sikka 2016 review has been published in a journal with an impact factor higher than the Restpero 2013 review.
• "These percentages do not correspond to all other sources of the article" - This is exactly my point here. The authors of the Sikka 2016 review clearly have an expert opinion on the quantitative data on the prevalence of ASA, and this opinion is different from the opinion of the authors of one of the chapters of the 2017 book. According to WP policies, all points of view expressed by experts should be reflected in the article. Therefore, I have placed special tags in the section where these quantitative data are discussed, to show that the currently described numbers represent a one-sided view on the problem. You cannot remove these tags until this issue is settled. By settled I mean that everyone here would agree that the issue is settled. I hope you do not start removing these tags again before the consensus is reached. Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

First, answer the question, did you really misunderstand my evidence above? As a clue - I'm expanding your question. Why do your source data contradict all the other modern reviews in the article and other sources that I cited? Your source refers to a low-quoted article that takes data from a very old source. At that time, they still did not know which levels of ASA were significant. Путеец (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• I suggest removing the disputed source. It is little cited, contains errors, does not have unique data that can not be taken from available sources. Путеец (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Alloimmunity to spermatozoa, passive transfer of antibodies

In Kokcu (November 2012) - Sperms contain antigens that are foreign to both male and female immune systems. Alloimmunity and autoimmunity to spermatozoa in men and alloimmunity in women can develop. [25] "In Koch postulates: specific autoantigens and autoantibodies or T‐cells exist, the disease occurs also in animals, and passive transfer of antibodies induces the disease in experimental animals or in the human. All these points are fulfilled in male immune infertility."

• Alloimmunization occurs from contact with the sperm antigens of another partner. This is politically correct MSM (Kokcu 2012). It is clear that in the case of men - it's sexual practices. But passive immunization according to Koch's postulates is also possible. This can happen when the blood is transfused from the carrier of antisperm antibodies in the serum, for example after vasectomy, a homosexual man or a woman who uses anal sex. I think it's worth mentioning the passive immunization of ASA in the article, and adding articles related to blood transfusions, homosexual practices, and anal sex, with reference to the article Antispermal antibodies. Dear editors, add to the relevant articles a link to immunological infertility and Antisperm antibodies. Путеец (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

GM corn and antisperm antibodies

Dear Flyer22 Reborn Do you think it makes sense to post this information as an example of use for contraception?[26] "Scientists have created the ultimate GM crop: contraceptive corn. Waiving fields of maize may one day save the world from overpopulation". --Путеец (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)