Jump to content

Talk:Biology and sexual orientation/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

The same problem, quoting people whose status is not clearly relevant to the subject of this article

The same problem I've seen on another article: quoting people who are not involved directly with research on sexual orientation, but make very broad and bold statements without providing any reference for their claims. I have deleted the same quote by Michael King, who is a professor of psychiatry specialised in the area of primary care, on the topic of sexual orientation. For the same reason I will proceed to delete the quote, because someone who is not an authority in the field should not be quoted making over-arching statements on the state of knowledge in this area of research. What is more, it's important to quote people who are not involved in any politics on the issue of sexual orientation. Now, professor King may be an excellent psychiatrist and a great person, but he did not publish anything that is quoted in the literature on sexual orientation and apparently he is very actively involved in taking political stances using his professional status to defend sexual minority rights. Given this context, please let's try to keep these articles as NPOV as possible and only quote people involved in sexual politics only if they have produced some scientific material relevant for the subject and of real significance. Otherwise, a little bit of research can give any reader the impression that we are editing this article to influence others' opinions using the words of advocates. I think we can do better than that. Thanks. PS - I will now proceed to make the changes I announced earlier on, on the brain-scanning study inacuracy. Aliasflavius (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Brainscan study conclusions misstated

In the "Physiological" section of differences between orientations, there is a statement which is not in line with the referenced study.

If you read the study from footnote 56 (the Safron et al. (2007) study), the conclusion is that the group difference was observed only for the amygdala region. What is more, one neuroscientist commented on this study that the (amygdala) difference between groups was so small that perhaps the main finding of this study is that "hetero" and "homo" male brains react similarly to their preferred stimuli. The authors of the study cautioned any interpretation of this study to take into account that the study cannot say if the differences were the result of different levels of arousal and similar processing or similar levels of arousal but different processing. In lay terms, scientists cannot say if people of different orientations use the same brain regions similarly for different sexes but they are more or less aroused by those sexes or because they use the same brain regions in different ways, which leads to arousal in the same regions but for different sexes. Where did the author of this statement get this conclusion from? If no reason, based on the study, is offered I will make the necessary correction soon. Aliasflavius (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Update - I have made the announced modifications. Now the article only refers to one difference in the amygdala region between straight and gay men, observed in brainscans while study participants were watching erotic films. The argument for making this change is based on one of the authors' presentation of the study:

"By all means, make this article as biased as possible"

The sources you gave for "Gay men have longer penises" need to be seriously reconsidered, as there is no reputable scientific evidence to verify the validity of your claims. Logically, it would be the exact opposite.

Furthermore, "Gay men report..." is not valid, because of course they are going to say they have larger penises. What guy wouldn't?

Where it says "Gay men report..." I don't think that the scientists just asked some gay people "Do you have a larger penis than the average straight man?" and all the test people in the survey said "yes". They probably asked some straight men and some gay men "How large is your penis". Now, assuming each group on average exaggerates equally (which I admit is up for debate, though there is no a priori reason to expect one group to lie more than the other), then the results are reliable. More formally, if the reported average length of a gay man's penis is greater than the reported length of a straight man's, and both figures are liable to the same systematic error, it is likely that the errors will roughly cancel and that the reported difference in size will be quite accurate.

We need to play a game of Smear-the-Queer wikipedia style.

"somewhat confused"

In the pheromones section it refers to the results of Lesbian women as "somewhat confused", but I can not find it in the source. Can somebody please elaborate? Thoughtbox (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC) [1] I too could not find any source to fit such claim yet I did find an article that states just the opposite.Nikkidimble (talk) 06:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Teenage girls and young women who identify as Lesbian or bisexual are just "going through a phase" and that most of those women will eventually settle down as heterosexual.

The scholarly research on this topic does not provide strong evidence in support of this assumption. On the contrary, the most careful, longitudinal studies - in which researchers keep track of the same women for many years - suggests just the opposite. For example, Professor Lisa Diamond followed a cohort of women for 10 years: she found that over those ten years, these women were more likely to ADOPT the bisexual label than they were to RELINQUISH that label

Please keep Lesbian and Bisexual seperate as they are two seperate identities. I think it's more appropriate to include "some women" rather than all women who are lesbian or bisexual as many Lesbians do not ever become bisexual or adopt a bisexual label. Thanks. -seeker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.6.20 (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening quote (APA)

I removed the bolded statements "sexual orientation" and "biology." The emphasis does not appear in the original, and the quote's relevance to these topics is obvious from it's inclusion in the article "Biology and sexual orientation." I consider this a minor edit, but the emphasis could return, with a notation "emphasis added." Any thoughts or preferances? Biccat (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Heretability Table

Estimates of heritability of homosexuality
Study Male Female
Hershberger, 1997 0% 48%
Bailey et al., 2000 30%
Kendler et al., 2000 28–65%
Kirk et al., 2000 30% 50–60%
Bearman et al., 2002 7.7% 5.3%

I have removed the heretability table until it can be corrected. Bearman et al did not estimate the heretabilities of same sex attraction to be 7.7% and 5.5% in males and females respectively. Those numbers refer to the concordance of homosexual attraction in MZ twins when at least one feels same sex attraction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domminico (talk • contribs) 23:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, well, isn't that what each of the other studies in the table also are based on: the concordance of homosexual attraction in MZ twins when at least one feels same sex attraction. The incidence of concordance is then taken as the measure of heretability. GiveItSomeThought (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the table is consistent - but heretability has a technical meaning in genetic epidemiology. I don't think the numbers in the table correspond to this (i may be wrong).15:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Scans see 'gay brain differences'

Scans see 'gay brain differences' 01:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Awful wording

The article reads, 'Biology and sexual orientation is the research within the field of biology with regard to investigating the nature of sexual orientation in humans and its causes.' Sorry to whoever wrote this, but it sounds awful. Just to start with, the beginning, 'Biology and sexual orientation is the research within the field of biology...' does not make sense. This needs to be rewritten so that it makes sense. Skoojal (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest avoiding the use of the term "etiology". From the WP article etiology "In medicine in particular, the term refers to the causes of diseases or pathologies", and the dictionary closest at hand (Penguin dictionary of Psychology) defines it with one short sentence "The study of the causes of disease". The use of this term very strongly implies that a homosexual sexual orientation is considered to be a disease or a pathology. It has been reverted once, and I'm choosing to abide by 1RR here. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
What has this article got to do with the use of the word in medicine? If you read the etiology article again, it is a general word covering many fields, including biology. MickMacNee (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
If you simply intend the term to mean "cause" then I suggest you use the word "cause". Anything related to the topic of sexual orientation will be read by many who will read the term as it is defined (as for example, in a dictionary of psychological terms cited above) as meaning "cause of disease". The only reason I can think of for using the term "etiology" rather than "cause" is the different implication of the common psychology/medical definition. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm using it to represent its universal meaning:- "The study of causes or origins." in biology. This is supported by wording of the second reference of this article: "No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.... there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality", from the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrics. Presumably they know what the word means. So I'll ask you once again, what has an article on the biological causes and origins of sexual orientation got to do with fields of medicine/psychology and how they choose to further define the meaning of what is otherwise frankly a universal word? MickMacNee (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
You ask "So I'll ask you once again, what has an article on the biological causes and origins of sexual orientation got to do with fields of medicine/psychology" and I'll reply once again that it's pretty obvious. I doubt very much that any biologist uses the term "etiology" without being aware of the inference of disease. Clearly, you & I are merely two samples, and I'm prepared to be swayed by evidence against my opinion, I'll go ask for further input elsewhere. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
So a biologist is never going to use the word if he isn't talking about disease? Patent nonsense. But if you have to go to such an obviously biased place to prove your point, go right ahead. Quite what is wrong with the standard third opinion process I have no idea. MickMacNee (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead with WP:THIRD fine by me (I wasn't under the impression that this rose to the status of a "dispute"). I thought you were saying that if folks like the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrics used the word, then it was unreasonable of me to assume that it would be at all offensive to Gays and Lesbians, or --more to the point-- to misrepresent the views of researchers on this topic, so how better to determine that than to ask our fellow wikipedians over at WikiProject Sexology and sexuality? Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
"So a biologist is never going to use the word if he isn't talking about disease?" well, as a biologist who does research into the biological influences on adult behaviour, I would certainly not use it unless I was referring to a disease. In the approximately twenty years I've been doing research in behavioural biology I don't think I've heard it used as a drop-in term for "cause" as you seem to think is common. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Use of 'etiology' as a replacement for the word 'cause' is your assertion, not mine. I am using it in its defined literal context in the field of biology and science in general, to mean the study of the causes and origins of something. If your personal opinion is that this meaning would be so bizarre to anybody else reading this article, or that it is so obviously yet another banned hate word in this context because you say so, then change the etiology article, and change the various dictionary definitions that are not about the specific definition about disease, if you are honestly that sure that your opinon is correct. MickMacNee (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
It is my considered opinion, based on my years of personal experience as a behavioural biologist engaged in scientific research, that any biologist seeing the term "etiology" applied to sexual orientation would assume that it was being used in the the medical/psychiatric/psychological sense of "cause of disease". I am not asserting that a dictionary definition of etiology doesn't include definitions which apply to causes of things other than disease. I've changed it once, I'll leave it to others to enlighten me as to whether my personal experience is out of touch with reality. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well it's a moot point now, thanks to a fly-by edit by Joshuajohanson (talk · contribs) presumably in response to this [1]. MickMacNee (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And I can't honestly see what the relevance is between the provided edit summary most of this page and most of medical world does not say biology causes homosexuality, just contributes to it, and the actual dispute over the use of the word in the context here. Is the assertion supposed to be that somehow, the research described in this article actualy begins with the premise that there is no bilogical etiology to be found? That they are therefore only concerned with proving the existence of a contributing factor? (which is what the replaced wording now reads as). MickMacNee (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how the edit summary addresses the point either, and the distinction between "cause" and "contributes to" has always seemed sophistry to me. MickMacNee, if the rationale doesn't satisfy you the you can always just revert it and wait for more opinion to appear. I wish you wouldn't, but I'm not going to revert again, or wikilawyer XRR on you. I'd rather see more input on the point. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Both etiology and cause suggest that it is the sole factor in the development in homosexuality, whereas contributes suggest there are other factors involved. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
And how is that a bad thing? i.e. in a lead sentence explaining the topic of the article, biological research into orientation, opening with the statement that there is ongoing research into whether there is a biologcal etiology to orientation? What is the problem here? With your edit summary, and its repetition above, you seem to be making a general point, instead of addressing a specific problem with the actual form of the lead sentence before you changed it. How exactly do you start research holding a pre-determined opinon that you are only looking for a contributory factor and not a cause? The lack of consensus resulting from research is already stated later in the lead, your objection on these grounds seems wholly pointless. MickMacNee (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The intro should be a summary for the article. The source says that "there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality."[2] However, there are plenty of studies supporting biological contributions to the development of homosexuality, and that is what the rest of the article is about. The view of a minority of psychologists that homosexuality is solely determined by biological factors should not outweigh the majority of psychologists and official statements that indicate homosexuality results from a combination of factors. I don't mind having a section about the fact that some people are looking for or believe there to be a sole biological cause, but that isn't the majority view and should not be in the first sentence. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
You've completely missed the point. The first statement described the basic topic of the article, that research into biological etiology of orientation is ongoing. It said nothing about the current state of the art or the conclusions currently drawn from that. Even if it said 'cause', which 'etiology' is not a replacement word for, that would not be implying what you are claiming it does. You cannot start any research with the pre-determined idea that you will not find a sole cause, nor that you will. But you can undertake research into biological etiology, period. I fail to understand this basic breakdown of understanding the English language. The current wording is meaningless, and your correction to 'contribution' wasn't justified. MickMacNee (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
If I may make a suggestion: I think both your points of view would be correctly represented if the article separated the biological correlates of sexual orientation (which are directly observed and generally accepted) from the various interpretations of whether those correlates reflect causes of sexual orientation (which is more contested). I think readers would be very interested in hearing about all the (many) correlates and about experts' various interpreations of those correlates.
Personally, I see little value in trying to describe what is "generally" accepted: There is no way to know (it isn't as if scientists get surveyed no one conducts surveys of scientists), and not all scientists are created equal. A great many of the authors who publish opinions on this topic know very little about biology, despite being legitimate experts on other aspects of sexual orientation.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


Wording still awful

The article reads, 'In the topic of biology and sexual orientation, ongoing scientific research is examining the possibility of there existing a specific biological contribution to the ultimate development of a specific sexual orientation in human beings.' Sorry, but that still sounds awful. Just to begin with, that sentence should not start with the words, 'In the topic of biology and sexual orientation.' The rest is pretty bad too (please don't use the word 'specific' twice in one sentence), and perhaps POVish. Skoojal (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Why merge the pages?

Why not, I say. I can't see a good reason for keeping them separate. Much (maybe most) research on sexual orientation is biological now anyway. If there is no "Non-Biological Influences on Sexual Orientation" article, I can't see any reason why there should be a "Biology and Sexual Orientation" article. Skoojal (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The proposal is to merge Sexual orientation and Biology and sexual orientation? (someone ought to put a merge proposal tag on Sexual orientation then). True there is no Non-Biological Influences on Sexual Orientation article, but there is Homosexuality#Non-biological_explanations (and note that Homosexuality#Biological_explanations replicates much of the material in the merge candidates you identify). I'm neutral on this, but would suggest that Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation and Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation would make better merge candidates for Biology and sexual orientation. Sexual orientation seems an umbrella article, I count 13 subarticles linked to in main and further templates. I can't see why questions of biological causation ought to be privileged/persecuted (whatever) with a merge up. But I can certainly see why Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation and Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation might be merged in here. It is my personal preference that articles be small and tightly focussed, rather than large and all-encompassing. I'd also prefer that articles remain tightly focussed for another reason, one I find harder to expalin so I'll just provide an example. When I first created the Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation article, it wasn't called that, it was called Fraternal birth order. I'd hoped to write an article on Fraternal birth order and it's influences on psychological traits other than sexual orientation (I'm an aggression researcher, that's down the hall from Sex Research, no one ever comes to visit, I donno why...) one day there will be a bunch of very interesting things to say about fraternal birth order and social behaviour in general (violence is far more interesting than sex) or fraternal birth order an behaviour in mice (mice are more interesting than humans), and I think merging al these small articles just restricts further development of good articles on those topics by channelling discussion of the sub topics to the main article they are merged into. Not a really strongly held opinion, Just my 2c. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Pete Hurd. There is a lot of information in this article and merging the two would overwhelm the sexual orientation article. I am working on an Environment and sexual orientation article, which will go more in depth on some of the principles in the Environment section on the homosexuality page. Give me some time to do this. I have been working on several different articles, but the Environment article should be ready soon. Joshuajohanson (talk) 06:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
That 'Homosexuality#Biological_explanations replicates much of the material in the merge candidates you identify' is part of the problem. I have suggested that this material be deleted. I can't see any reason for not deleting it, although I've refrained from doing so immediately. Whether biological explanations of sexual orientation are correct or not isn't the issue; the only issue is, do they need a separate article from sexual orientation. I think the answer is no. I don't think environmental explanations of sexual orientation deserve their own article either (it might be possible to create an entire article about theories about how sexual orientation could be a choice; that doesn't mean it would be a good idea). Skoojal (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Both articles are already huge... truthfully, the sexual orientation article itself needs to be reduced in size with various aspects pushed to their own main articles... merging moth of these articles would be counter-productive. Besides, sexual orientation as a whole and sexual orientation as biology relates to it are two different issues... one includes the latter, but the latter is only a small part of the wider subject.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimsone (talk • contribs)
I don't think the sexual orientation article is "huge" or needs to be reduced in size. It is an OK size for an article. Some of the material in the two articles overlaps, so I don't think merging them should be such a problem. Nevertheless, I won't do this if there isn't agreement. Skoojal (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
No, just checked the size, and it's not. However, it's still about as clear as mud, and if it were written clearly and comprehensively, it would be. In any article where it's realated to another article, some information overlaps. There's nothing wrong with that - it's normal.Crimsone (talk) 08:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I look forward to seeing you rewrite the article! In the mean time, I am abandoning the merger proposal, due to lack of support. Pete Hurd has a point that 'Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation and Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation would make better merge candidates'; I'll suggest this at some point in the future. Skoojal (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid you'll be waiting for a long time... I don't partake of such serious edits anymore on account of being sick of the absolute pigswill that tends to follow them (the reason for which being evident from my talk page)... Actually, it's a wonder I'm still here... why I've even returned a little bit is something I'm still trying to work out. Crimsone (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
If you don't want to edit the article yourself, then you could give me your suggestions, and I'll edit it. I'm not frightened of pigswill; I've given people my share of it. Skoojal (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"Karolinska" ref

Our article says of Långström et al study "They found that homosexuality was largely due to environmental factors, not genetics." and yet the linked to article Society's attitudes have little impact on choice of sexual partner with blurbs by Långström says the exact opposite. "The results show, that familial and public attitudes might be less important for our sexual behaviour than previously suggested", says Associate Professor Niklas Långström, one of the involved researchers. "Instead, genetic factors and the individual's unique biological and social environments play the biggest role." The study reports the exact opposite of what this article says it does. The linked-to article reports "Overall, the environment shared by twins (including familial and societal attitudes) explained 0-17% of the choice of sexual partner, genetic factors 18-39% and the unique environment 61-66%. The individual's unique environment includes, for example, circumstances during pregnancy and childbirth, physical and psychological trauma (e.g., accidents, violence, and disease), peer groups, and sexual experiences." this seems totally at odds with how it is portrayed here. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Pete, Genetic factors came in at 18% to 39%, environmental factors came in at a whoppping 61% to 66%. Social factors came in a mere 0% to 17%. BTW, I just can't get the reference hooked up to save my life. I think it's because it's in some way hidden. Hopefully whoever runs that can hook it up properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.131.47 (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I should add that Michael Bailey recently stated that another massive twin study was due out soon. I think he implied it would be the best yet. Uggh... didn't sign in for last comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duper-Super-1000 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, unique environment was a whoppping 61% to 68, that's really quite different from "environment" in the sense of "social factors". Note that "genetics" is significant in the results. I ask you, does the sentence "They found that homosexuality was largely due to environmental factors, not genetics." have the same meaning as "The results show, that familial and public attitudes might be less important for our sexual behaviour than previously suggested [...] Instead, genetic factors and the individual's unique biological and social environments play the biggest role." because as I read it, they don't an our article is dishonestly twisting the results of the study. "familial and societal attitudes explained 0-17% of the choice of sexual partner, genetic factors 18-39%" just doesn't seem to me to justify the sentence "They found that homosexuality was largely due to environmental factors, not genetics.". Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Pete if you read the blurb on the study and the press releases related to this study "environment" does not mean socialization. They believe it is largely due to biological environment, not social. According to this study the biological environment is significantly more impactful than genetics. 18% to 39% for genes is much smaller than 61% to 66% for environment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duper-Super-1000 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If the author of the study summarizes the results as: genetics and unique environment are important while familial and public attitudes are not, then why write here that it found that genetics are not important? Doesn't that seem askew to you? Why not just honestly report the findings of the study. The authors don't draw any distinction between biological environment and social environment (because there isn't really one) Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Pete I quoted the exact release from the study. Genes came in way lower than environment. 18 to 39 for genes is way lower than 61 to 66 for environment. I'm not sure what you are getting at.

What I'm getting at is that the study is presented in this article as providing evidence against the effect of biological factors in sexual orientiation (which is the topic of this article), when the study and it's authors conclude the opposite. The study is presented against the view (quoting one of the study's author's book) that "Research efforts to identify psychosocial factors in the development of sexual orientation have turned up virtually nothing. In fact, the ‘research’ is often not actually research in the scientific sense” [...] “such views of the origins of human sexual orientation are just plain wrong” [...] “…we have shown that social factors play no appreciable role in the development of sexual orientation”. The study demonstrates the importance of biological factors, and the unimportance of social factors, and yet it is presented in the article as the opposite. This is done by the muddling of the two forms of environmental influence, unique and shared. This muddling does nothing to honestly educate the readership, but merely serves to obfuscate. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Pete, the release which I included in quotes stated several things that environment could potentially include. Many, if not most of these factors were biological. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duper-Super-1000 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If you could please start specifying which "environment" you mean in sentences like that, it would make it so much easier for me... I take it you mean "circumstances during pregnancy and childbirth, physical and psychological trauma (e.g., accidents, violence, and disease), peer groups, and sexual experiences." when you say "biological". Social factors act on us through the effects they have on our hormones, gene transcription, etc. The biggest influences on our stress hormones come from our social environment, the division between social and biological is illusiory, unlike the distinction between unique and shared environment. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Pete, you are correct. The text in quotes came directly from their study and it explained what the researchers meant by environment. Most of what they listed was biological. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.131.47 (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this original research?

From the article:

"Twin studies have received a number of criticisms including ascertainment bias where homosexuals with gay siblings are more likely to volunteer for studies. As all the studies show, homosexuality cannot be purely genetic, otherwise, all identical twins would have the identical sexual orientation as their twin."

Is it original research? Darimoma (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

From Bailey's research:
This suggests that concordances from prior studies were inflated inflated because of concordance-dependent ascertainment bias (Kendler & Eaves, 1989). In those studies, twins deciding whether to participate in a study clearly related to homosexuality probably considered the sexual orientation of their co-twins before agreeing to participate.[3]
It could probably be reworded, but the general principle is true. Many studies may have biases, according to Bailey's observations. Also it can't be completely genetic, though that doesn't mean it isn't completely biological. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, don't know why I put in that first sentence. I just meant the second sentence.
While I agree the data looks like it's not just a genetic thing, I'm not sure one can conclude from it that it cannot be purely genetic - identical twins don't have identical DNA[4]. I think a more fitting conclusion would be that it is highly improbable that it's not purely genetic, but, again, that's original research. Darimoma (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The argument that since identical twins are concordant for sexual orientation at far less than 100% that genetic influences cannot explain all variation is very very far from OR. I don't have an introductory psych text book at hand, but I would expect that argument to be presented in most, if not all. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there an online source we can use? Darimoma (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
From the first introductory psychology textbook I crack open (Schacter et al (2009) Psychology Worth ISBN 978-1-4292-0264-0) on pg 435:

"However, scientific research has failed to identify any aspect of parenting that has a significant impact on sexual orientation (Bell, Weinberg, & Hammersmith, 1981), and indeed, children raised by homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are equally likely to become heterosexual adults (Patterson, 1995). There is also little support for the idea that a person's early sexual encounters have a lasting impact on his or her sexual oreintation (Bohan, 1996). On the other hand, there is considerable evidence to suggest that genetics plays a role in determining sexual orientation. Gay men and bisexuals tend to have a larger proportion of gay and lesbian siblings than do heterosexuals (Bailey et al., 1999). Furthermore, the idential twin of a gay man (with whom he shares 100% of his genes) has a 50% chance of being homosexual, whereas the fraternal twin or non twin brother of a gay man (with whom he shares 50% of his genes) has only a 15% chance (Bailey & Pillard, 1991; Gladue, 1994). A similar pattern has emerged in studies of women (Bailey et al., 1993). In addition, some evidence suggests that the fetal environment may play a role in determining sexual orientation and that high levels of androgens predispose the fetus -whether male or female- later to develop a sexual preference for women (Ellis & Ames, 1987; Mayer-Bahlberg et al., 1995). Of course, biology cannot be the sole determinant of a person's sexual orientation because, as these figures indicate, homosexual men and women often have twins who are genetically identical, who shared their fetal environment, and who are heterosexual nonetheless."

(emphasis in original) Now, I could quibble with some of the details there, but I think that accurately describes the view of mainstream scientists on the matter (and clearly shows that the point in question is far from OR). Note also, I read about a dozen or so intro psych texts this summer (all candidates to be our new intro psych course textbook) and none of them had anything really different to say from the quote above (and when I was teaching a more advance Behavioural Genetics course, the textbook said about the same thing as well. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Am I right in thinking Schacter et al isn't published yet? Don't want to be a pain, but have you got any already-published sources (or is there an earlier edition of the book)? Darimoma (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's published. New texts for the fall term typically have the next years date, I donno why... must be the same marketing think as new cars Pete.Hurd (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, cool, man. Cheers - top stuff. I'll add it in when I get the chance. Darimoma (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Done. Darimoma (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

sociobiology?

Is this a part of sociobiology? I don't see any cross-references between the two articles, but the research seems similar (investigating to what extent social behavior is determined by biology). --Delirium (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe this as part of sociobiology. Sociobiological explanations focus on Ultimate, functional explanations for behavioural variatio, while this article focusses on proximate explanations, so I see these two topics talking past each other. Pete.Hurd (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah yeah, that makes sense. I was mostly thinking of the connection in terms of both approaches being charged with biological determinism on occasion, although oddly the sides seem to flipped in terms of which side the political liberals vs. conservatives are on. --Delirium (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The left-right orientation of nature vs nurture has a long history of not being consistently oriented one way or the other when examined carefully. Off the top of my head Segerstrale's book contains a long riff on this topic. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks for the reference. I may have the opposite impression due to being an academic with a lot of humanities colleagues (though I'm a computer scientist myself)—among the left-leaning folks, anyway, social-construction theories are nearly universally held, especially if you wander into an area like gender. --Delirium (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
left-right? liberal-conservative? That is a bit simplistic when many Radical Feminists are closer to conservative Christians than gay researchers like Hirschfeld and LeVay. Even LGBT people don't agree on this, and not all those who plump for nature are log-cabin Republicans. Carpenter - left - nature. Ellis & Freud - far from right, only differed in the extent of the role of nature/nurture. Mish (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hyper-heterosexuality in women

I think this may be a useful resource, but I'm not quite sure about how to go about incorporating the information. [5]

Particularly of note: Camperio Ciani emphasises that, rather than being a "gay gene", this unidentified genetic factor is likely to promote sexual attraction to men in both men and women. This would influence a woman's attitude rather than actually increasing her fertility, making her likely to have more children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.156.9 (talk) 05:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's compelling stuff. All you need then is a gene which attracts either sex to women, and you've got a complete set of homosexuality-relevant genes. Tcaudilllg (talk) 11:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Large Fraternal Birth Order Effect Study Just Released

A new study by Andrew Francis from Emory University found no Fraternal Birth Order Effect. His sample was large, over 10,000 participants. I personally believe in a biological explanation but it looks like this one might not be it. Maybe someone would like to tackle this one. [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duper-Super-1000 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hormones how? Hormones where?

It doesn't take a quantum leap of cognition to accept that hormones created in the fetal body do in fact steer the growth of the rest of the organism. However, there is a big difference between hormones which are produced within the placenta, and hormones which are outside of it and presumably blocked by it. The tone of this article seems to have difficulty with the proposition that fetal hormone need not equal maternal hormone. If it came from the fetus, then obviously it's a matter of fetal DNA producing the hormone, not the mother's. Tcaudilllg (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The words "presumably" and "obviously" are really key here. It is not at all "obvious" that variation in fetal hormone production is due to variation in fetal DNA sequence. Nor it is at all reasonable to assume that maternal hormone fluctuations don't result in variation in fetal exposure. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
What does variation have to do with anything? It's simple biology: you have cells which respond to hormones by developing in different ways. The developed cells then produce more hormones which in turn direct the development of other cells. Has it been proven that maternal hormones can in fact cross into the placenta? Or even that they can reach the glands/clusters which are responsible for sexual differentiation? That's what this is really about: does the condition of the mother genuinely determine the development of the child apart from malnutrition? Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hormones can pass through the skin (eg hormone patches), so passing into a fetus that is completely immersed in an hormone filled womb would seem likely. Which isn't the same as true.YobMod 07:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Section Pheromone studies

I'm taking out the following part of the section, because the sources do not provide the stated conclusions:

"Another form of research was done by Dr. Savic. Dr. Savic uses PET scans to see the brain activity while letting people smell different types of pheromones. Savic used two compounds that resemble the male and female sex hormones. The first is 4,16-androstadien-3-one (AND) which is a derivative of testosterone produced in human axillary secretions in higher concentrations in men than in women. The second compound is oestra-1,3,5(10),16-tetraen-3-ol (EST) which is a substance resembling naturally occurring oestrogenes [2]. These are the pheromones that make men and women attracted to each other. When a man smells a woman's pheromone, EST, there is a degree of brain activity. The same happens to women for the pheromone AND. Savic found that gays had the similar brain activity as women when given the whiff of AND, and vice versa for lesbians [3]. Savic's findings imply that sexual orientation is determined prior to exposure to life’s environmental influences. Also, unlike some of the early researchers, Savic's research is less likely to cater to a gay political agenda or bias, as her field was originally epilepsy research. She inadvertently stumbled onto the pheromone sex differences while studying how smells might trigger temporal lobe epilepsy [4]."

What kind of peer-reviewed journal can salon.com be ? The paper simply finds a difference between brain reactions of homo- and heterosexual humans. There is no way to tell if this is hereditary or learnt later in life, and the original research paper does not state a single word concering this problem. Perhaps someone can reword this into a single sentence about the brain differences, but I personally do not see what the article gains from this, as the relevance is not clear (brain differences are already stated in several other sections). —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMaster17 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Physiologial diffrences

In the old bad days – I think it was during the period 1870 - 1914 – there where claims of gays being more physically feminine and lesbians being more masculine. Yet the list of physiological differences for the very most part deals with differences in the brain. Only two paragraphs deals with differences visible on the outside. One describes a trait that is hard to notice (relative length of the fingers) and the other is the very opposite of the old claims (penis size). Does this mean that the old claims have been disproven? Please note that the homo- and bisexuals I have encountered have usually looked typically male and female. I have only met one homosexual and one bisexual that looked more androgynous. In fact, the most androgynous person I can come up with is a former neighbour who showed no indication of being anything but heterosexual. Once she was nearly hanged up by a gay who mistook her for a man!

2009-06-10 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Contraception

I've read that some researchers had made ties between prenatal hormones and contraception, suggesting that things like the birth control pill could have an impact on male sexual orientation. ADM (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have also heard that. But it seems to me (of course, I'm just a layman in these fields) that this is more barely-researched rumor than serious scientific study. The Squicks (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Evolution: Gays have fewer kids?

Does anyone know of any study proving the essential concept in the evolution section (that homosexuality = less reproduction)? Before the 20th century, it was my understanding that exclusive homosexuality was very rare, and most homosexuals (if they existed) would still marry and reproduce . I would guess that nowadays gay people have fewer kids, but is this true over an evolutionary timescale? I think the section would be greatly improved if the initial claim is referenced, so at least all the arguments against are not tilting at windmills.YobMod 12:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to provide a study that proves the concept you noted. The paragraph is clear that this is a popular argument or assumption (one I've encountered in endless conversations). In essence, those sentences are not claiming this to be true, just claiming it's a meme in society, one that's used by organizations like NARTH. At the minimum, what is necessary is some reference of the claim itself, not a study proving or refuting it. In the interim, we could tag it with {{who}} to suggest the current statement is a little wishy-washy in the way it presents the concept. --Rkitko (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd be suprised if no sociologist has ever done a statistical study on the number of offsping for different orientations, but maybe the data doesn't exist. Making it clear that this is a non-scientifically studied assumption would certainly help though.YobMod 07:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Clinical cases

It would be interesting if the article would be able to go beyond classical heterosexual/homosexual divisions and try to find out whether certain clinical cases of sexual behavior are biologically determined. For instance, there is a debate among psychiatrists on whether child sexual abuse, rape and incest are biologically determined. If so, it would mean that certain ethnic groups would be more likely to have child abusers in their ranks. There were concerns about Ireland during the priest abuse crisis because so many pedophile priests were ethnically Irish. In that case, one could imagine the scientific use of eugenics in order to ethnically cleanse such ethnic groups from potential genetically pre-conditioned pedophiles. ADM (talk) 05:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This would be off-topic, as paedophilia is not a sexual orientation, it is a paraphilia. J. Michael Bailey has co-written a paper on the ethics of parents terminating a foetus that carries a (hypothetical) gay gene - which would be more on-topic. Mish (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
First, I do not believe there is, in fact, any discussion among psychiatrists (or any other related field) about "whether child sexual abuse, rape and incest are biologically determined." There is evidence (and, therefore, discussion) over whether the paraphilias in general have a biological etiology, however. Second, there is no evidence (and no discussion I am aware of) indicating that the biological aspects of the paraphilias are at all related to any known biological difference among ethnic groups. This is not to say that ethnic differences in sexual behaviours/offenses do not exist, but no one has ever shown that such sexual behavior differences are not better accounted for by more obvious factors, such as different cultures being more and less likely to report behaviours to the authorities and therefore available to official count. I am not aware of any bone fide expert in pedophilia discussing any ethnicity-related eugenics in the way ADM postulates.
— James Cantor (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Conclusion section

This section is ONLY about a 1991 survey and yet it appears to be presented as a conclusion of the studies listed above -- which were pretty much all later than 1991.

Kinda hosed up. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Funniest damn thing I ever read on Wikipedia

This isn't a terribly useful remark of mine, I know, but I just had to tell you guys that this quote is the funniest thing I ever read on wikipedia: "Gay men report, on an average, slightly longer and thicker penises than non-gay men"

I don't mean to argue with it's validity, the sources are probably smarter than me, but if it were true, it would be immensely funnier even. :) 85.145.116.131 (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Inbreeding

No this isn't a troll topic. As many know in European Pole Cats males born to mostly females litters are often homosexual, showing disinterest in females and exhibiting full sexual behavior with males. I've heard it suggested, multiple times, that in such cases homosexuality in the males may serve an evolutionary advantage by decreasing the rate of inbreeding, have any studies been done to this effect? --67.58.84.222 (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion explanation

Explanation for this editation is fully compliant with Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Use up-to-date evidence Putting it back is obviously in contradiction with Wikipedia rules. --Destinero (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

APA is 2007; seems current to me. LeVay is 1996, and I don't see any more current research that contradicts him. Will you please point it out to me? --Dr.enh (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Please see this talk page for further related discussion. --Dr.enh (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Pediatric Neuroendocrinology: Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation

I find essential the following study and it's conclusion to be mentioned in the article: "The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation." http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Doi=262525 --Destinero (talk) 10:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

physiological

this section needs to reflect that while there are some studies that show a correlation, there are other studies that show there are not, some of which are even listed in that section. the way it is phrased currently is biased. i don't want to change it because i think someone will undo it, how can we fix it so it is neutral? Aisha9152 (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I made some changes to your last edit, so I may be one of the editors that's frustrating you, maybe we can find some consensus. Thanks for opening this up to discussion. My main concern, I think, is this: When I look through the individual studies shown, I see about two dozen physiological attributes that are listed as things that individually have been shown (within a particular study) to correlate to orientation. Reading through the list (and it's a long list, please correct me if I'm wrong), I only see one study that does not find a correlation (the second part of the section on anterior commissure). To make an analogy: It seems to me, and let me know if this makes sense to you, that if I say "Joe and Jim are different, they have different hair, eyes, teeth, feet, and legs." and another person says "Joe and Jim actually have the same legs", that it's still fair to summarize this is "Joe and Jim are different", the vast majority of claimed differences aren't disputed, just the precise list. So, I don't think it's in any way unfair to summarize those dozens of studies as "studies have found many ways in which there seems to be a correlation between orientation and physiology". We can argue whether it's 17 or 18 (I didn't count), but either way, some have found that. Now, if there are more studies that seem to show that there's not a correlation, we should find some reliable sources and add that information, absolutely, and that might change the game. But let's make sure not to give undue weight as per WP:UNDUE. I don't know--are there more studies that really seem to argue against the existence of these correlations? I've only seen the one I noted in the list. other many differences found in other studies--that is, studies that are published in reliable sources, etc? If there's more studies (subject to WP:V, WP:RS, etc.) that aren't being included, let's make sure they gets added. --Joe Decker (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
well the problem is i don't think these sources are reliable either, i mean look at the 6th one. i think just saying "some studies" as the introduction would do a lot to make it sound less authoritative. Aisha9152 (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd certainly be okay with adding "Some" in front of the first sentence of the section, that'd totally work for me. Does that help? (The sixth item, first of two footnotes appears to be from a peer-reviewed scientific journal that's published by Springer-Verlag... *reads more* on the other hand, using 1938-196x data from Kinsey sounds *really* flaky to be due to selection bias. I see your point on that item.) --Joe Decker (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
ok, i will add it. wikipedia is vulnerable to a certain kind of bias because of the kinds of people who usually feel it is worth spending time on it, so i think this is just an example of a larger issue. i'll add some and think about it thanks Aisha9152 (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks--I will be away for several days, but I wanted to say how much I appreciate your approach to this discussion. Thank you! --Joe Decker (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
i think this is also unencyclopedic "These studies provide evidence that" ... it implies an agreement with the study - that they actually provide evidence instead of make claims. i think it should say 'claim' instead of 'provide evidence' but if you have another idea i would like to hear it. really what the studies do is make claims based on evidence - and that is what we are making reference to. Aisha9152 (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I read the word evidence differently than you do it's commonly used in science in a way that... well, to my ears, "study X provides evidence of Y" in a science context could be fairly accurately reworded as "study X consistenst of an experiement whose results support the hypothesis of Y". How would you feel about "Those studies suggest that ...." or something like that? That in the 2nd sentence would connect "Those studies" with the particular studies that do support a correlation, and perhaps "suggests" doesn't sound as absolute as "evidence" to you? Thanks for thinking about this. --Joe Decker (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
i think suggests is better than provides evidence of, but what is wrong with 'claim'? that is least ambiguous to a layman. Aisha9152 (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
to put it another way if you say 'the study provides evidence' i would say no, that is the conclusion not the evidence in the study. if you say 'suggest that', then i can say that it really doesn't suggest it (suggests can mean implies, which still shows that you believe the study), and that the study is badly done. but if you say the study 'claims that', then i cannot argue with it. that's why i think it's the best phrase to use. that is the only way to present this data in a _clear_ and unbiased fashion. Aisha9152 (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that it is "unencyclopedic" to say "These studies provide evidence that". At least in encyclopedias outside of wikipedia it would be quite normal to present scientific evidence as the scientific community views it, and not worry that it "implies an agreement with the study". I would suggest that the aim of summarizing scientific research on a topic ought to be to explain what scientists believe and why they believe it, and presenting what WP:N WP:RS non-scientist sources think rather than attempting to make every sentence reflect all views. I would think it is safe to assume that even wikipedia readers would understand "These studies provide evidence that" to mean that the study authors provides evidence consistent with the hypothesis and they suggest that the hypothesis might be true. Outside of wikipedia, empirical evidence for and against (arbitrary example) Einstein's theory of relativity vs some string theory prediction would not be couched in language implying that the authors of studies make "claims" rather than "actually provide evidence" in an article. Essays on the fallibility of science, don't belong in every encyclopedia article about topics of scientific investigation. For what it is worth, I think that "physiological" is a poor heading for this section, the vast majority of these traits are morphological, not physiological. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
i have to disagree with your claim "safe to assume that even wikipedia readers would understand" - first of all, it is kind of insulting to wikipedia readers, and second of all, obviously this is not how i understood the statement - so it is not safe to assume it at all. this information needs to be shown in a clear way that doesnt rely on understanding the different scientific use of laymans terms. Aisha9152 (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
to put it another way your argument seems to be "it is SUPPOSED to be interprested this way", but what i am asking is why we cant phrase it more clearly so it cannot be misinterpreted by someone with a different background. Aisha9152 (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't follow the argument that it is "kind of insulting to wikipedia readers" when I suggest that we should present things the way 'real' encyclopedias do under the assumption that wikipedia readers are just as able to understand the material as readers of other encyclopedias. Just so I understand, when you say " 'the study provides evidence' i would say no, that is the conclusion not the evidence in the study" you are saying that we should limit ourselves to presenting the data from the research and refrain from presenting what the scientists think it means? Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
i am saying that we need to make it clear at what times we are presenting the data and at what times we are presenting the scientists' conslusions - all i wanted to do was change 'provide evidence that' to 'claim', because that is what the studies do. they provide evidence, it is up to someone to interpret the evidence into a conclusion, and that is what the study does, but another person can interpret that evidence in another way. Aisha9152 (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Claiming the the moon is made of green cheese is different from providing evidence that the moon is made of green cheese, just like claiming that exposure to Tinky-Winky makes boys become gay and presenting evidence of this are two different things. So when scientists present evidence that, you think wikipedia ought to take a "we report, you decide" stance and not say that the scientists present evidence that... ? Pete.Hurd (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
they are not "presenting evidence that". they are "presenting evidence that they believe/suggests that". there is a big difference between those two. for instance "the moon has holes very similar to those in swiss cheese, so it must also be made of cheese", according to how you are stating we should summarize it, presents evidence that the moon is made of cheese. i dont see that as an accurate summary of what is happening there. Aisha9152 (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
since no one has responded to my last point i am going to guess that you agree or lost interest so i will make the change. thanks for discussing it. Aisha9152 (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Unverifiable source

There is a cited claim on this page that a study by sanders et al. in 1998 replicated the Xq28 genetic link to homosexuality, however, the only paper by sanders in 1998 about this topic I've found information on says that they DID NOT replicate the results. Can someone who has access to this book "Born Gay" please verify that it definitely says they replicated the results? The original paper seems to be unavailable, however, the one that says they did not replicate the results includes Sanders as an author, so it may be worth just deleting that statement altogether because it's kinda clearly untrue. Here's the paper that says it: http://www.springerlink.com/content/m232wur016t3nu37/ 149.157.1.154 (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

According to this technical comment in Science, Sanders et al. 1998 DID replicate Hu et al.'s results: Hamer, 1999. Sanders et al. 1998 is a poster presented at a meeting, so it's not directly available. But you're right, in this later paper Sanders says that that poster did not replicate Hu's results. Apparently Hamer misread or misrepresented Sanders et al.'s poster. In a response to Hamer's comment, Rice et al. say that Sanders' poster didn't agree with Hu. I'm going to take the erroneous claim out of the article. Agathman (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I've fixed the immediate problem in the article, but now it really needs some cleanup. Is anyone familiar enough with the literature on X linkage of genes related to homosexuality to make that section into a coherent statement? Agathman (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I have found the reference to Sanders, A.R. et al 1998 in 'Born Gay'. It is poster presentation 149 at the annual APA conference in Ontario. The reference is on p.51 and does say they replicated Hamer's results, but does not mention Xq28. It says this was a study of 182 families with two or more gay brothers which concludes maternal transmission based on 13% of maternal uncles being gay compared to 6% of paternal uncles. Mish (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
It looks like he did not publish those results, and was primarily concerned with work on bipolar and schizophrenia at that time, but returned to this issue, and in a later 2008 paper found no maternal link: http://www.springerlink.com/content/m232wur016t3nu37/ The results of the 1998 paper seem to differ when reported in conservative religious sources. Presumably this is based on whether one regards 13% vs 6% within a small sample as statistically significant or not? Mish (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Genetics and evolution

I have found an interesting science article that may be of great use to this article. It is about the genetics and evolution of homosexuality and the testable predictions made from mathematical models. Someone of expertise may want to take a look and do a bit of research. This could be a great contribution to the article!

Andrew Colvin (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

An entry on "sexual orientation" in general or on "homosexuality" in particular?

While the title of this entry refers to "sexual orientation" it is in fact focused almost entirely upon hypothetical causes of homosexuality. Little or no space is devoted to summarizing research into the causes of heterosexuality or bisexuality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.171.42 (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The section called Biological theories of etiology of sexual orientation" seems to be about sexual orientation in general, including heterosexuality. Lousyd (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality undergoing revision

The article Homosexuality is undergoing revision. The revised version is available in the sandbox and the project documentation and coordination is taking place in the Sandbox's talk page.

I would appreciate if people joined in. I'm currently looking towards forming a team for the revision and future maintenance of this article.

Thank you,


Pdorion (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Minor changes

I added a couple new sentences in the paragraph about the Zietsch et al., 2008 paper to include some qualifications about the results of the study from the discussion section of that paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.99.196.55 (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No Source Listed

In the section: Biological differences in gay men and lesbians Physiological

The entry: It has been discovered that the anuses of homosexual men tend to be 68% larger in circumference than those of heterosexual men.

Has no supporting reference 116.232.8.113 (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Exotic Becomes Erotic

In the section on "Exotic Becomes Erotic" the last paragraph seems out of place. It starts with "William Reiner, a psychiatrist and urologist with..." and then talks about gender orientation and a suggestion that sexual orientation is determined at birth. This doesn't sound like a part of the EBE theory, which explicitly maintains that sexual orientation is not determined at birth, but rather in childhood. I propose deleting this paragraph or incorporating it into another section. Lousyd (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Teenage Sexual Orientation

Why is it so hard for people to believe teenagers can identify themself as being Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual or Transgender and are not just confused about their sexuality? Nikkidimble (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


Untitled

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

Pathology section removed

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

I found this article which very briefly discusses the theory. Apparently it couldn't pass peer review. However it does turn up the next year in Project MUSE (search for Infectious Causation of Disease: An Evolutionary Perspective) which claims to be peer-reviewed, but I don't know if it qualifies as a reliable source. The theory doesn't seem to be very well-followed in the public sphere either, appearing about a decade ago and not having much discussion since. If nobody wants to reinstate this content, I suggest we remove the redirect under Pathogenic Theory of Homosexuality. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 05:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
There are a few articles in the serious popular press about a decade ago. The idea is sometimes promoted in anti-gay circles. The Infectious Causation of Disease: An Evolutionary Perspective is the only article that might have been peer-reviewed, but more often symposium articles are accepted as is without peer-review. But even then, a concept put forward more than 10 years ago without any follow up is not notable in itself. We are not publishing every obsolete idea for many many topics, so I do not see a reason to add this topic. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm...but you cite no evidence that the concept was found to be scientifically obsolete. I suggest that in fact it is merely political suicide to follow that theory whether true or not. Just as this article also lacks the perspective that being a genetically driven prediliction does not by itself grant behavior desirability or acceptability: keep in mind violence and hyperactivity are also likely genetically driven. The difference is that homosexuality is actaully becoming a positive social trait due to world population growth outstripping sustainable resources. Yup being gay is GREEN! And murder and rioting is NOT! 72.182.8.122 (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Bearman and Bruckner

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

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

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

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

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

Based on your comment, may I then suggest that we do not do a direct quote but instead paraphrase what they said because other points in the paragraph say this: Bailey and Pillard (1991) in a study of gay twins found that 52% of monozygotic (MZ) brothers and 22% of the dizygotic (DZ) twins were concordant for homosexuality.
As you can see this is a highly dated study (1991) which is given 28 words, but the Bearman and Bruckner's study is 2002. But they are only quoted to provide support to other positions other than their most important position. Historyprofrd (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine with the study's findings being presented in a similar way to other studies listed. If you want to represent their other conclusions, my request is that they be given where topically useful, for example put their statement about birth order effects under (and, because it's criticism, at the end of) the section Birth order. Thanks for your cooperation. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 04:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I have done the summary and used 7.7 as you suggested. I found this article in the net: http://www.ivpress.com/title/ata/3429-tablea1.pdf / and this http://www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch10.pdf
Hope that is ok now. Historyprofrd (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The second link you've provided is from www.mygenes.co.nz, a website operated by Neil Whitehead, who is a board member of the discredited anti-gay organisation NARTH. I would advise against trusting or using any of his material or claims as he has been known to misrepresent studies and lie. You can read about this here and here. −Human10.0 (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Lede improvement

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

Biology and sexual orientation is the subject of research into the role of biology in the development of human sexual orientation. No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, but various studies point to different, even conflicting positions, such as no genetic influence,[1] or a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences,[2] with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment

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

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

This is not necessarily in defense of the previous wording, but your new wording seems potentially problematic on three counts:
  • making a single study—however "prestigious"—the very first ref in the article, and basing the lede's wording on it, may constitute undue weight;
  • singling out one position (no genetic influence) for mention might not be the most neutral wording;
  • the conjunction "but" suggests that the rest of the sentence will stand in contrast with the first clause, which it really doesn't.
The article isn't Research into biology and sexual orientation; it's just Biology and sexual orientation. As such, it may well benefit by beginning with a very general overview (e.g., statements that the AAP journal citation will support) before singling out any one study. I could be wrong. (I have neither the time nor the inclination to involve myself deeply in the article at present, so please take the above as just a "fwiw" comment.) Rivertorch (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it is a violation of WP:NOR. Did you mean NPOV? Regardless, I don't think Bearman & Brückman is very prestigious. It's now 10 years old and newer studies have found a mix of genetic and non-shared environmental influences. Bearman & Brückman were also criticized for their study, as among sociologists (note that they are not biologists) a "constructionist" view would support their conclusion. Bearman & Brückman found data similar to that of the Långström study, but while Långström concludes that both genetic and environmental influences are significant, Bearman & Brückman throw out all biological explanations in favor of a pure constructionist sociological explanation. The salient point here is that Bearman & Brückman is not very representative of recent twin studies and should not be presented in the lede as WP:UNDUE weight would be put upon it. Rkitko (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments.
To Rivertorch: (1) we can move it to second or third, (2) as it is the present wording is given a ref to an article on Sexual Orientation and Adolescents which does not mention the supposed "general acceptance by scientists". The present wording contradicts the fact that there are important scientists who differ from the combination theory it gives, thus nullifying the general acceptance itself. (3) yes OK, we can remove the conjunction but.
To Rkitko, You are right that it is about NPOV because based on what I said above, the present wording of the lede gives undue weight to the "combination theory". Because it gives zero weight to a significant theory from scientists of Columbia and Yale and which the study of Bailey, Dunne and Martin (2000) somehow supports because of the 20% concordance in the male identical twins and 24% concordance for the female identical twins that they found. But it is also a violation of NOR, based on what I said in (2) to Rivertorch.
I think going by the suggestions of Rivertorch will help, so am proceeding to do them now. Historyprofrd (talk) 07:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I understand your questioning of the "general acceptance" wording, although I'm not sure that the existence of "important scientists who differ" negates the possibility of that a rough consensus may reasonably be claimed. In various fields, there are notable researchers whose published findings go against the grain. Those do need to be reported in our articles, but care should be taken to ensure that minority views are identified as such and not given equal prominence. I'm speaking in very general terms here, and probably not saying anything you don't already know. In any case, I consider the wording much improved now. Rivertorch (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Good to hear of your support, Rivertorch.
In general, since we are dealing with an ideologically charged issue here, I'd say that we ensure that any refs here are based on sources generally untainted by any ideological prejudice and have not been accused by reliable sources of having ideological motives. Historyprofrd (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Mintwi17 removed the "or no genetic influence" part of your addition.[7][8][9] Following that, I tweaked the wording because only the general scientific belief (of course suggested by research) about what causes sexual orientation was left in the lead, and it's better not to make it look as though it's significantly disputed. I'll point Mintwi17 to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
While it is alright to mention that latter part elsewhere in the article (and that only if proper, direct, reliable sources are found), it is not proper to mention it at the top of the article right alongside the general scientific view. --Mintwi17 (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Causes of sexual orientation

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

Recent edits: Causes of sexual orientation

  • Since this article is about Biology and sexual orientation, and environmental influences are not mentioned in the body, this edit is contrary to WP:LEAD and WP:WEIGHT. ( The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight).
  • If we want to inform our readers that there are other theories about sexual orientation, we can write in the lead something like: For environmental theories see Environment and sexual orientation.
  • I have heard for many possible environmental factors, but this is the first time that I heard for "promotion of tolerance". Are we sure this is not some fringe theory? Are there other sources that mention "promotion of tolerance" as a factor?
  • UPDATE: The quote from the book is misinterpreted, it discusses "gender identity and sexual orientation of children whose parent(s) is/are Lesbian or Gay" NOT sexual orientation in general.--В и к и T 09:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Environmental influences are mentioned in the body, just mostly not social ones...except for the "Exotic becomes erotic" theory since it includes a lot of social material because it's about how biology interacts with social aspects.
As for the IP, such as his misuse of sources, I (as others may have seen by now) have already addressed the IP about it. Besides his misuse of sources, he is problematic because he continues to edit war and refuses to discuss...except through edit summaries. Flyer22 (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I reverted the IP early on in the edit war because their addition was misrepresenting what the source said. It says that "much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation", not that "research generally suggests" that such influences are responsible for determining sexual orientation. I don't think it's appropriate for this article to avoid any mention of non-biological influences, any more than it's a good idea for Environment and sexual orientation to avoid mention of biological influences; not mentioning it removes context that is essential for allowing the reader to grasp the basics of the topic. Rivertorch (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Yep, Rivertorch. Agree completely. And the IP has now added the text (that Wikiwind mentions above) to the Environment and sexual orientation article. Per above, it's still a misrepresentation. And I don't believe that commentary from one, or more than one, author should be in the lead anyway unless it's from an authoritative source (such as the American Psychological Association). As for this article, the Pediatrics source clearly means "social factors" by stating "environmental influences" since its use of "hormonal" already covers "uterine environment," but, like I stated in this edit summary, "we haven't specified what the source means by 'environmental [influences]' because the source does not specify... I'll have to check the source that Pediatrics cites for all of what that source means by it." We also should probably go back to using "research suggests" instead of "research generally suggests" to more accurately reflect the Pediatrics source; again, I'll have to examine the source it cites for the information about genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. Flyer22 (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted the IP's edit at Environment and sexual orientation as inappropriate for the lede and left a note on their talk page asking them to join this discussion. Rivertorch (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
as Rivertorch has stated, i only wish to mention that "environment" does not only mean biological influences. a non-scientist who reads this article may receive an inaccurate information because of the lack of clarification on the definition.
as for the book by Ellen Perrin that i've cited, it is referenced in the mentioned Pediatrics article -- in fact, if you read the Pediatric article, the "environmental influences" used in this Wiki page is actually from the Perrin's book.
also, i don't think the Perrin's book regarding socialization should be considered as a primary source. in her book, the quote is followed by a citation to "(Bailey et al., 1995)". thus, the quote is actually a secondary source of the primary source (Bailey). 76.88.105.180 (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I doubt that anyone automatically thinks "biological factors" when they see "environmental influences" or "environmental factors." For example, you didn't and neither did Wikiwind. Instead, most people don't know or they forget that "environmental influences" can also mean biological factors. Yes, the Pediatrics source, in its ETIOLOGY AND PREVALENCE section, cites Perrin EC (Sexual Orientation in Child and Adolescent Health Care. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; 2002) for the "Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences." line, but it is better to use the Pediatrics source or a source like it when reporting this type of research. See WP:MEDRS. Per what Wikiwind stated above, you are also using an inappropriate page of the Perrin source for the information you've added. You have misrepresented the source because of that. Certainly, since the Pediatrics source cites Perrin, there is a page of the Perrin source that can accurately reflect the material you want added. If such a page is used, and since the Pediatrics source is citing Perrin for the "genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences" information, it is fine to clarify that by "environmental influences" we mean "social influences." Flyer22 (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, I am thinking that it is best that we drop any mention about what research generally suggests about sexual orientation, since research on sexual orientation is inconclusive, like the major scientific organizations state. Scientists generally favor biological models for the cause of sexual orientation, but they generally believe that sexual orientation is formed by a complex interplay of biological and social factors. So I feel that we should attribute the "genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences" text to what scientists/researchers believe, which is also supported by the American Psychological Association source on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Flyer22, i did not misinterpret "environmental influences" because i have a scientific degree and well informed in this matter. neither did Wikiwind because he's a moderator and have read many articles in discussion. as mentioned, an average person may interpret "environmental" as some sort of chemical environment, i.e. prenatal hormonal environment. why is it so difficult to simply clarify it by adding social influence as you agree yourself?
regarding misrepresentation... fine, you can make the quote to apply specifically to those children brought up by gay/lesbian parents. however, you're walking on a thin ice because somehow in your mind those children under gay/lesbian parents are so different than other children under heterosexual parents, that they can be socially influenced, while other children are immune to social influences. obviously the author of the Pediatrics journal understands that the children are children, and what can influence one can influence other as equally.
YES! i agree with Flyer22 that we should use more scientifically accurate wording used by APA. the fact is that nobody knows what really causes sexual orientation. let the reader know this scientific fact first -- then, we can discuss these possible influences ranging from biological to social.76.88.105.180 (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Your first edit to the article as the IP you currently are was to specify that "environmental influences" means "social and cultural," so that is why I stated that you did not automatically think "biological factors" when you saw "environmental influences." It is also clear from above that Wikiwind was not referring biological factors when addressing environmental influences, which is why Wikiwind suggested the text you added be regulated to the Environment and sexual orientation article. We also don't have (official) moderators here; we have (among other things) administrators. And even if we did have (official) moderators, that makes no bit of difference about the moderator's knowledge on these matters. Wikiwind is also not an administrator. But it certainly appears that you are familiar with Wikiwind.
It's not difficult for me to clarify what environmental influences means by adding "social influences," but, like I stated, we should not clarify that if the source does not. Wikipedia follows WP:Verifiability. Just because we believe that the source means "social influences" does not mean that we should add it. But, again, if a page from the Perrin source clarifying that it means "social influences" by mentioning "environmental influences" while stating "combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences" is used, then there is no problem clarifying "social influences." And, no, I don't want to make the quote you used "apply specifically to those children brought up by gay/lesbian parents." There is no making it do that anyway, since it already does apply to that; the point was to make you see that you were misrepresenting the source. The text is not relevant to sexual orientation in general. And I did not state that we should use the American Psychological Association's wording; I stated that "we should attribute the 'genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences' text to what scientists/researchers believe, rather than what research suggests, and that's because research is inconclusive on what causes sexual orientation. Flyer22 (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
let's see how this wiki quotes the Pediatric source in terms of environment. "but research generally suggests that sexual orientation is a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors,[1] with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.[2]" the word "environmental factors" is followed by a comma that then states "the early uterine environment". how do you think the reader would interpret of the first "environment" -- social or uterine? however, if you read the Pediatric source, the environment is used as social, but never as uterine. here are some quotes from the Pediatircs:
"The overall goal in caring for youth who are or think they might be gay, lesbian, or bisexual is the same as for all youth: to promote normal adolescent development, social and emotional well-being, and physical health. If their environment is critical of their emerging sexual orientation, these adolescents may experience profound isolation and fear of discovery, which interferes with achieving developmental tasks of adolescence related to self-esteem, identity, and intimacy."
"OFFICE PRACTICE: ENSURE A SAFE AND SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT"
"Instead, the pediatrician should create a clinical environment in which clear messages are given that sensitive personal issues including sexual orientation can be discussed whenever the adolescent feels ready to do so."
again, the very Pediatric source always use the word "environment" in social context, and never uses it or even mentions uterine. nevertheless this wiki makes it sound as if the Pediatrics' "environment" means uterine. could you please fix this inaccuracy? 76.88.105.180 (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
can any admin respond how to address this issue please? if no admin responds, then i'd take it that you want me to try to edit it instead. we can make this article accurate by clarifying that environment can mean both social and biological. not mentioning social influence as a part of the environment would be a misrepresentation of the Pediatrics article. i can add another sentence with a new reference to clarify and support the definition.76.88.105.180 (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Not sure why you want an admin. Please be patient; there is no fire to put out, and the discussion is likely to be productive if we give it a chance. I'm not quite sure how best to proceed, but I'm going to leave a note at a relevant WikiProject, which I hope will bring more editors to the conversation. Rivertorch (talk) 05:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
IP, I'm sure that no one would initially interpret "environmental influences" or "environmental factors" to mean "uterine environment" all because the sentence went on to mention "uterine environment" when describing a complex interplay of genetics. Even after initially reading the line and then reading it again and again, I'm sure that most people would equate "environmental influences" to mean "social influences"...just like the Environment and sexual orientation article is mostly about social influences. Again, if people interpreting "environmental influences" as "uterine environment" was a high possibility, that would have been on your mind when you came to this article. Judging by your initial edit, it wasn't. You, like most of everyone else does, interpreted "environmental influences" to mean "social and cultural." You have broken up the sentence,[10][11] so that's taken care of anyway.
The quotes you listed above have nothing to do with the "Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences." line. You quoted parts of the Pediatrics article that happen to use the word "environment"; at no point are those uses put in the context of environmental influences helping to determine sexual orientation. The first quote is about making sure that gay, lesbian, or bisexual youths live in a healthy environment. And "OFFICE PRACTICE: ENSURE A SAFE AND SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT" and "Clinical environment" quite clearly are not about environmental influences helping to determine sexual orientation. I don't understand how you continue to misinterpret and misrepresent sources the way that you do, but it's troubling. Not mentioning social influence "as a part of the environment" would not be a misrepresentation of the Pediatrics source because the Pediatrics source does not clarify what it, or rather Perrin, means by "environmental influences" when it states "Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences."
I will ask WP:MED to weigh in on this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Among other tweaks, I also tweaked your latest changes.[12][13] Flyer22 (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Rivertorch and Flyer22, thank you very much for your continuous assistance. i am content with the current wordings, now that there is no confusion to what environment might mean.
if we're asking other people to weigh in, then maybe we should ask psychologists, as the subject is related more to psychology than medicine.
just an FYI - as mentioned, the issue was not because i would misinterpret the meaning of environment. it was because an average reader who is not familiar with the topic could have misinterpreted.
my point in bringing up those quotes from the Pediatrics source was to show that the source never used it in context of uterine environment. as you said, the Pediatrics does not clarify what it means -- which is why i tried to bring up the cited source, Perrin's book. in Perrin's book, it uses the environment to mean social: "Among the postulated environmental influences on gender role and sexual orientation are imitation, socialization, and promotion of tolerance." i understand that you feel this quote may not apply to sexual orientation in general because it is referring to children under gay/lesbian parent(s). nevertheless, considering this wiki page makes substantial references to homosexuality, i believe the quote from the book is relevant and is not misrepresented because it clearly connects environment to sexual orientation.
nonetheless, again i am content with the way it's written now. thank you for your time and patience.
76.88.105.180 (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
You are welcome for the assistance, IP.
It's not easy to find psychologists, and generally any expert, on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is mostly written by non-experts. I would have contacted WP:PSYCHOLOGY if that project were generally active; it generally isn't, and neither is WP:PSYCHIATRY or WP:NEUROSCIENCE. That means that the chances of getting help from those projects is significantly lower than getting help from WP:MED. Plus, a lot members of those projects are also WP:MED members. But I don't object to contacting those projects about this matter, considering that at least one person from any of them may come along to help at request.
We were not using the Pediatrics source to mean "uterine environment," though, IP. I know that you feel that it could be taken that way because of how the sentence went on to mention "uterine environment" when describing a complex interplay of genetics. But again, that's now taken care of by your splitting that information. Also, like I stated before, whether we use the page of Perrin's book that you used or not, we should not use that page for the topic of sexual orientation in general. Yes, Perrin was most likely talking about sexual orientation in general with that line, not solely about children of gay/lesbian parents, but an editor (Wikiwind) objected to using it in a general context and that objection suggests that the context of the line, given the page it is on, is not as clear as it should be. I told you that since the Pediatrics source cites Perrin, there is certainly a page of the Perrin source that can accurately reflect social influences being one of the theorized combinations that form sexual orientation (and likely termed "environmental influences"). One just needs to read the entire book and find that page or pages.
Also, an editor removed the text you added to the lead about a twins study. So I'm not sure if you'll still be content with the lead now. For what is appropriate to put in the lead, see WP:LEAD. Flyer22 (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
it's unfortunate that the twin study text has been removed. yes, without that text, i think we should clarify what "environmental" means. how about this? we could say, "environmental (biological and social[1]) factors.[2]" and have the ref#1 point to the twin study. the twin study mentions that the influences are from genetic and environmental (biological and social). thus, these two refs are in sync with this lede, and by adding separate refs, we let the readers know which info came from where. 76.88.105.180 (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
My 2c. 1) Environment and sexual orientation should be merged back to this article. IIRC, that other article was created as a counter-argument to this one, and reality is that "Biology" and "Environment" are overlapping Venn diagrams. 2) The implication that Biology and Environment are opposing influences should be addressed by disambiguating "Heritable factors" from "Biology". 3) Most importantly, Environment should be discussed in terms of "Shared" and "Non-Shared" components, as it is, the false idea is transmitted that all environmental influences are of the shared type, and that is clearly very wrong. An informed exposition of non-shared environment would be very valuable, not only for addressing ignorant "genetic determinism" or "environmental determinism" readings. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
IP, I'm not sure what else to state to you about this. But you could be WP:BOLD and try out your suggestion, see if anyone will revert it. But being familiar with the editor who reverted you, I feel that he will likely revert your edit. I also feel that including "biological" in the parentheses would be redundant because it is already covered by "genetics" and "hormonal" (which are biological aspects). Further tweaks to the lead have been made by WP:MED member Biosthmors, though they don't address your concern, and I tweaked one part of those changes.[14][15][16][17]
Interesting take, Pete.Hurd. What would you title the article if the merge were to happen? It doesn't seem that you would want to leave it titled Biology and sexual orientation. I'm not going to undertake the merging you propose because I know that the merge would be contested, and I'd therefore rather leave the merging to someone else. A discussion about it should be had first, however, and I would weigh in on a discussion about that. I also point out that we additionally have a Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Flyer22, ok thanks for your permission to try. i'll wait a few more hours for any input from other editors before trying. hopefully, this time the edit would stay because it will contain a reference to the twin study which coincides with the lede sentence. i think "biological" should be included because it carries more broader meaning than genetic and hormonal. for example, there is a theory where mother's immune system could have had an influence -- it would fall under biological, but not genetics or hormonal. 76.88.105.180 (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
In addition to Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation, there is also Fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation (and Handedness and sexual orientation). Good luck with it. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
No problem, IP, though you didn't need my permission. I'm obviously fine with the way that the lead currently is.[18][19][20][21] I moved the reference to end of the sentence, after the first reference, because the text looks cleaner that way. Good point about "biological" being broader than "genetics" and "hormonal"; I keep its broadness in mind when I use the word "genetics," remembering that it's not always synonymous with "biological" (even when I or others use them synonymously). The word "biological" beside "social" in parentheses can also be taken to mean that we are simply emphasizing "genetics" and "hormonal" while using "social" to emphasize that it's what we mean by "environmental" (though, as we know, "environmental" can mean more than just social). But, yeah, it's fine.
And, Pete.Hurd, soon after I posted my above reply (and before your reply to me), I had become aware of the fact that you already have experience with the Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation article and the others you listed above. Sorry for pointing you to something you already knew about, though the mention was for anyone reading this section. Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Per my above suggestion above that "we drop any mention about what research generally suggests about [causes of] sexual orientation, since research on sexual orientation is inconclusive, like the major scientific organizations state, and that "[s]cientists 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," and that we should instead "attribute the 'genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences' text to what scientists/researchers believe," I finally altered the lead to this. Flyer22 (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing

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

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

Lede

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

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

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

I don't think that the edit really adds value to the lede. It's essentially redundant with the second sentence of the lede, but worded in such a way as to subtlety cast doubt on the role of biology in sexual orientation. The last sentence of the edit seems to say "ignore everything else, here is the truth" and seems to be original research. - MrX 20:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't hate what you did, although I disagree that my wording was OR. I still feel that the wording of the APA quote is convoluted and beats around the bush a bit. Let's be realistic: What is the average layperson going to be trying to learn? They obviously were just listening to Lady Gaga or Oprah and they want to know "Are gay people born gay?" Well, the fact is that science doesn't know either way, so it should be made VERY obvious, to someone with average high school reading level.Ragazz (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The problem with your wording lay in your attempt to summarize the APA's position by saying, "In other words, the scientific community has not reached the conclusion that sexual orientation is determined before birth." One might say with at least equal validity that "the scientific community has not reached the conclusion that sexual orientation is determined after birth" [emphasis added]. Summarizing it one way or the other creates at least the appearance of an WP:NPOV issue (and maybe WP:OR as well). Better to let the source's own wording speak for itself, imo. Rivertorch (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
That is fine, so why not say "The scientific community has not reached a consensus as to at what point in development sexual orientation is determined." Clumsy language, but surely NPOV? As it is, crucial information is left out of the lede.Ragazz (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't MrX who removed your edit. As you've likely seen by now, it was Wikiwind. Wikiwind's addition, however, is even more redundant than what you added. But before either of your edits on this topic, the lead was clearer on the fact that what determines sexual orientation is not known when it stated "No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated." instead of "A simple and singular biological role for sexual orientation has not been conclusively demonstrated." You believe that most people who first come to this article are coming to it for the answer to the "Are gay people born gay?" question. However, whether a person can be gay (gay as in applying to males and females) when he or she comes out of the womb, scientists generally do not believe that sexual orientation is determined only by biology or only by environment, as touched on in the #Recent edits section. They generally believe that it's a complex combination of biological and environmental factors, similar to what the American Psychological Association states about that. Most scientists also do not believe that sexual orientation is a choice. I'm confused as to how you think that the lead doesn't make abundantly clear that scientists don't know what causes sexual orientation. As for "at what point in development [is] sexual orientation determined," whether born with a sexual orientation, it being determined only by environment, or by a complex combination of both biology and environment, the American Psychological Association states in its How do people know if they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual? section: "According to current scientific and professional understanding, the core attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence. These patterns of emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction may arise without any prior sexual experience. People can be celibate and still know their sexual orientation-–be it lesbian, gay, bisexual, or heterosexual." Flyer22 (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Due to Scientiom sometimes using the Royal College of Psychiatrists source to push the POV that sexual orientation is only determined by biology, such as recently,[22][23] despite the fact that most scientists state they don't know what causes sexual orientation and that they generally believe that sexual orientation is determined by a complex interplay of biology and the environment (both uterine and non-uterine environment), I have restored the lead to how it was before Ragazz's, Wikiwind's and Scientiom's recent changes. And let me be clear that the American Psychological Association, which is the world's largest association of psychologists, is more authoritative than the Royal College of Psychiatrists source. And out of all the big scientific organizations, the Royal College of Psychiatrists is the only one that asserts that sexual orientation seems to be only determined by biology. I also had to revert Scientiom on creating a WP:Undue weight section that presents only the Royal College of Psychiatrists statement on the matter.[24][25] Flyer22 (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
See the comments on my talk page for more on that. Flyer22 (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree that my edit added some redundancy. As the lede stands, however, it's a little unclear. Flyer22, we generally agree about where things stand with the consensus in the scientific community. Maybe there needs to be a sentence to the effect: "Most scientists believe that there are a combination of biological and social/cultural factors". That information is in there, but it is not really made abundantly clear with the wording as is stands. On a less careful reading, one could interpret things to mean: "The roots of sexual orientation are all biological, including a, b, and c. Scientists don't know exactly how much of each factor comes into play, but the biological basis for sexual orientation are described in the article." Since we agree that the preceding does not describe that state of understanding, I think we can agree to a more clear wording that works for all of us.Ragazz (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The sources support the terms/phrases "genetic, hormonal, and environmental" and "environmental (biological and social)", but *not* "cultural" or "social/cultural". --Scientiom (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Ragazz, I was fine with this change you made to the lead, which is why I didn't contest it before moving on to edit other stuff (mostly revert vandalism). Per what I stated to you above, I agree that using "A simple and singular determinant for sexual orientation" is better than using "A simple and singular biological role for sexual orientation," but Scientiom has a point about not including "cultural." So I do object to including that ("cultural"). Scientiom reverted you. And I reverted Scientiom when he added the line about scientists favoring biological models, but then I reverted myself on that and tweaked the mention, as seen here and here. In addition to what I stated in that first edit summary about Scientiom's wording when tweaking the mention, we should avoid words such as "recently"...per WP:DATED. I don't feel strongly either way about mentioning in the lead that scientists generally favor biological models for explaining the cause of sexual orientation, but some of those biological models can also include social factors...such as the "Exotic becomes erotic" theory that has a section in the article. As for what you stated about attributing the text to what most scientists believe, I repeat what I stated about that in the Recent edits section above, including scientists generally favoring biological models for explaining the cause of sexual orientation: "...I am thinking that it is best that we drop any mention about what research generally suggests about sexual orientation, since research on sexual orientation is inconclusive, like the major scientific organizations state. Scientists generally favor biological models for the cause of sexual orientation, but they generally believe that sexual orientation is formed by a complex interplay of biological and social factors. So I feel that we should attribute the 'genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences' text to what scientists/researchers believe, which is also supported by the American Psychological Association source on the matter." Flyer22 (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

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

As shown in the Recent edits section above, there are also the Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation, Fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation and Handedness and sexual orientation articles. And then there's the Mental roots of sexual orientation and Neuroscience and sexual orientation articles. As for your proposal, considering that this article is titled Biology and sexual orientation, I don't see how it is necessary to tell readers that this article is about the scientific work done to establish the relationship between biology and sexual orientation. Unless put into a WP:HATNOTE, such an addition would be a WP:SELFREF violation. The lead also already lets readers know that this article is about the scientific work done to establish the relationship between biology and sexual orientation, without directly stating that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, reading WP:SELFREF closer, I see that the "This article is about" wording, without it being in a hatnote, may be acceptable. But I still don't see how such wording is beneficial concerning this article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
In other words. There is an article to collect the material concerning biology and sexual orientation, an other for environment and sexual orientation, and a third to consider the interplay and relative importance of both.--Auró (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
It is unclear what is meant by the term "biological" in this article. Shouldn't "biological" be used in contrast to social? Are not genetic and hormonal both biological, with hormonal being both environmental and biological? I'm changing the list again, to make it more concise.Ragazz (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Why is that needed, Wikiwind, so that you guys can collude and bully me? That's pretty obvious. Look, these articles are much more slanted to the gay rights agenda than the APA. My only agenda here is to put science over politics. The notion that "the scientific community believes that every gay person is gay when they come out of the womb" is FALSE. Stop trying to paint me a conservative because I am NOT. I have learned a lot about this topic DESPITE Wikipedia editors like you. Maybe gay activists would have more allies if they stopped using blacklists and spreading misinformation, just a suggestion. Real liberals hate that stuff.Ragazz (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The notion that "the scientific community believes that every gay person is gay when they come out of the womb" is FALSE - I agree with this. I've never tried to paint you as conservative but I do believe that you are pushing a fringe POV, just like Scientiom, only in opposite direction. These two articles are related, and anyone who is interested in this article will probably be interested in Environment and sexual orientation. That's why I posted the notice.--В и к и T 09:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
From what I have read, it does seem that most scientists have discredited the idea that childhood sexual abuse (or any sexual abuse) causes or contributes to a person being gay or lesbian (though, for example, a woman who has been raped as an adult by a man may abstain from men sexually and adopt a lesbian identity as a result of that rape). Scientiom's POV-pushing isn't so much WP:FRINGE, though, considering that scientists generally favor biological models (theories) for explaining the cause of sexual orientation. Flyer22 (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I am indeed pushing for every notable hypothesis to be included in the article. I am not pushing fringe theories, any agenda, or my own POV. What I have found in my reading, is that pop and party-line articles over-simplify to make it seem like this is basically decided in favor of biological determinants (or, of course the opposite is true with anti-gay op-eds, a fact which is not relevant here). The notion that there could be non-biological environmental factors at play in some instances, has not been disproven (this would in reality be very difficult to disprove). Of course this point is not emphasized in official statements by the APA, but in a more in-depth article such as this, it would be irresponsible to not at least mention the alternative hypotheses. Wikiwind, I appreciate the sentiment.Ragazz (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Ragazz, the notion that childhood sexual abuse (or any sexual abuse) causes or contributes to a person being gay or lesbian is WP:FRINGE. That's what Wikiwind and others meant about you giving it WP:UNDUE WEIGHT in the Environment and sexual orientation article. Creating a section specifically for a WP:FRINGE topic or a minor topic is considered WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to a lot of editors (often to me as well) because that section draws attention to that fringe or minor topic. Here are some parts of what WP:UNDUE WEIGHT states: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a 'see also' to an article about those specific views. ... Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. ... An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."
As for the notion that there could be non-biological environmental factors at play in some instances of determining sexual orientation, as you know, no one in this discussion has denied that (not in this section at least); in fact, sexual orientation possibly being caused by a complex combination of biological and non-biological factors has been discussed in this section, and is made clear in the lead of the article. As you also know, the article has an "Exotic becomes erotic" theory section, which is partly about non-biological factors. But this article is titled Biology and sexual orientation. And whether the American Psychological Association emphasizes that non-biological environmental factors can be at play in some instances of determining sexual orientation, it clearly addresses that topic by stating, "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles." Flyer22 (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Any published support for this?

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

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

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

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

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

No response? I'll give it another day or two.Tobeprecise (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
My response: not necessarily. Newer studies have had less time to be reviewed and refuted, so being "consistent with the most recent and comprehensive research" may not be the best approach. And it's almost always a mistake to give too much weight to any single study, no matter how comprehensive. Secondary sources are a better bet for determining this sort of thing, imo. Rivertorch (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any secondary sources in mind?Tobeprecise (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Rivertorch is correct; see WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, and keep in mind what I stated in the #Sourcing section above about WP:MEDRS's up-to-date evidence guideline. WP:MEDRS also stresses systematic review sources; it is very strict about typically avoiding primary sources. For more on why that is the case, see, for example, this and this discussion where WP:MED members explain the matter. Not a lot of new information has come out about the speculated causes of sexual orientation, certainly no new information that most scientists agree on. With regard to sources and due weight on the topic of what causes sexual orientation, we should give significantly more weight to what authoritative sources (such as the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association) state on any particular matter, unless addressing a specific study. If that specific study is only supported by a small group of researchers, it shouldn't be given the prominent weight of, for example, being stated in the lead or being presented as the most up-to-date and accurate information. As we know, different authors can reach a different conclusion about the cause of sexual orientation. And, like I stated elsewhere, editors could cherry-pick their favorite authors, or favorite lines from whatever book, to support any stance they (the editors) have on sexual orientation, even WP:FRINGE views. This is why we are generally supposed to defer to authoritative bodies for this topic. Going by a single author's and/or scientist's conclusion, or even what a few of them state, is WP:UNDUE WEIGHT if given inappropriate weight in the article. Going by one or more recognized scientific organizations' statements is not, unless it, too, is given WP:UNDUE WEIGHT.
And I don't have a high level of interest in this article. I also did not write a lot of this article, so no "due respect" is needed with regard to me in this case. But I obviously have an interest in it, and there are more than three editors interested in it as well (whatever the degree of their interest in it may be). Some of them just don't comment on this talk page as often, and barely edit the article (whether it's to revert or whatever else). Flyer22 (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Latest news breaking studies are not always recommended. Studies themselves need to be subjected to tests as to reproducibility and intrepretation. It comes as no great surprise that even without political influence allowing the injection of bias into study methods and analysis -- survey and psychological studies are the most easily contaminated by unmeasured variables and also the most complex and difficult to analyze for definitive results. In fact under the strict scientific method many of these studies should be in the end be classified as producing no usable results, even where strict attempts were made to avoid bias and limit external factors. Scientists are not gods. Theoretically it should be acceptable for such studies to yield no usable result.

Unfortunately the politics of both society and research funding itself demand that not only are results initially advertised as usable but results in human personality and behavior must always be announced as producing SPECTACULAR results. In the highly charged atmosphere of activist politics and connected science only the showmanship of initial release counts. Being shown to be full of bull on later examination for reproducable or logical conclusion is irrelevant ancient news which seldom makes front page nor most funding committee reviews. 72.182.8.122 (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

See here for what I stated to Tobeprecise about chronological order (that order is what I see most Wikipedia articles do when dealing with sections that mention dates in its text). There's not a lot more that I have to state about it than that. "Most important information" does not necessarily equate to "most recent." Also, per WP:MEDMOS (Sections), and the topic of sexual orientation does fall under WP:MED due to its psychology/psychiatry/neuroscience nature, History sections are usually placed close to last or last. History sections are also placed close to last or last in some other types of articles; it depends on how important it is for the History section to come first or earlier on in some other way in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 11:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hearing only one response, I'll address that one response. The one response so far seems to be addressing whether to put this section in chronological order, which was not the suggestion. The suggestion is that the studies be listed in order of importance, that is, comprehensiveness, critical response, etc. The more comprehensive studies go ahead of more limited studies, the more criticized studies go behind less criticized studies, etc. Since this is not a history section, the chronological order of the studies is immaterial.Tobeprecise (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

That's not how WP:BRD works; the 'R' comes before the 'D' for a reason. I suggest you split your copyediting into several separate edits. Doing it that way allows discrete changes to be reverted more easily without other, non-disputed changes getting caught up in the process. Rivertorch (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
My request is consistent with this statement in the "R" part of WP:BRD:
"Rather than reverting, try to respond with your own BOLD edit if you can: If you disagree with an edit but can see a way to modify it rather than reverting it, do so. The other disputant may respond with yet another bold edit in an ongoing edit cycle. Avoid the revert stage for as long as possible."
Further, while your request to do this in pieces is certainly a sensible one, what I have in mind is a fairly substantial re-organization of a pretty jumbled article. I have my doubts that it's going to work to do that in pieces. I'll certainly do so to the extent practical, but it may need to all be done at once to have any part of it make sense.Tobeprecise (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
All right, but you're cherry-picking something from the WP:BRD that doesn't reflect the totality of the advice in the essay. It's up to you how to proceed, but given that others have raised concerns about some of your proposed changes, you might want to take a conservative approach. There are certain edits that are difficult or impossible to modify without inadvertently making a hash out of things or spending an inordinate amount time laboriously copying, pasting, dragging, and meticulously checking what one has done. For better or worse, such edits often end up getting weighed as net positives or net negatives and dealt with accordingly. Rivertorch (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I humbly disagree that repeating a basic tenet of WP:BRD is "cherry-picking". Also, I don't believe that impatient editing can be made acceptable by excusing it as "for better or worse". There's no need for the "worse" option, when the "better" option is available with some forethought.Tobeprecise (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Tobeprecise, you stated that you are "going to WP:BRD and do a substantial copy-editing job," but then stated that you "would ask that the edited article be looked at seriously and in good faith, and that there not be a wholesale reversion back to the existing status." But, in addition to what you have stated about WP:BRD, it is about being bold, an editor reverting the bold revision wholesale, and then discussion about the matter taking place or rather continuing. To ask us to examine your extensive rewrite live and edit back in what we think should remain, take out what we think should not, is laborious. I'm not sure what else you want us to state, but to agree with you. We've already disagreed with you on some of what you have proposed, so we all should at least try to compromise. Instead of rewriting the article in the WP:MAINSPACE, I suggest you copy and paste it into your sandbox and rewrite it there so that we can review your proposal that way and come to a WP:CONSENSUS about it. I'm sure that we can agree to some of your proposed changes. Flyer22 (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The twin studies section should either be broken into two separate sub sections: one for earlier self-selected tests and one for later comprehensive tests without self-selection issues, or a concise general summary paragraph of the studies in general should be at the top of the section -- this is probably the most preferable and encyclopedic. Right now it appears to be more of a "history" section than getting down to the brass tacks of what the science itself actually shows as of today, even worse since the sections appear as more or less cut and paste jobs from the abstracts instead of more prosaic language. 68.117.88.143 (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Proposed CE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tobeprecise, I'm responding to this on your talk page. Rivertorch (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Tobeprecise, it's a disagreement. We have disagreed with some of the things you want to do with regard to this article. That does not equate to WP:OWN. The fact that we have been open to working with you, compromising with you, on this matter is the exact opposite of WP:OWN. I agree with most of what Rivertorch stated to you about this matter; only exception is that if there is a perceived WP:OWN problem at an article, I feel that the article talk page is the best place to discuss that, or an appropriate noticeboard if the WP:OWNERSHIP is blatant (very obvious), instead of the editor's talk page. From what I see, you are not willing to compromise on this matter; it's either your way or the highway. Flyer22 (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your observations, which are appreciated (I responded to Rivertorch on his Talk page). I'll let you know when the re-structured article is ready for your review.Tobeprecise (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Of numbers and hair whorls

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

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

Shame for Wikipedia

This article is a shame for Wikipedia. Mostly outdated, contradicted or inherently wrong/biased research is put together to make homosexual people some sort of different race illustrating stereotypes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.208.163.56 (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

With regard to your claim that this article is mostly outdated, you might want to see the #Article does not accurately reflect or describe most recent and most comprehensive research section above. "Mostly outdated" is not exactly accurate due to the fact that not much progress is being made in this field. As for the rest of what you stated, I disagree. Flyer22 (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Change to lede

I came to this article to answer the question is there a gay gene. As I'm sure many people do. The current lede makes the answer much more ambiguous than it should be. I think that although there continues to be research on the subject, an important conclusion as concerns identical twin studies needs to be included very clearly in the lede. The lede needs to be reworked. What I did was better than what exists now. So I am going to revert. Glennconti (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Glennconti, what you did there is not better in the least. And there isn't a thing ambiguous about the fact that the lead makes it perfectly clear that research on what causes sexual orientation is inclusive. Your line is not needed, in my opinion. And if you revert again, you will be reverted in turn (like you were reverted for the second time) and not just by me. I suggest you follow the WP:BRD process and look to achieve WP:Consensus for your material, including proposing any different wording than what you have offered so far. Flyer22 (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The current wording is unclear. You have said "That does not fit in the lead, certainly not as the second sentence, and it's already covered in the lead." If it "does not fit in the lede" why is "it's already covered in the lede.". Either it belongs there or it doesn't. Why don't you like the clearer unambiguous language. Twin studies are a gold standard as concerns genetics and needs to be mentioned. Glennconti (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
And my WP:Dummy edit, seen here, clears up what I meant by "covered." Flyer22 (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The current wording is not unclear as to the fact that research on what causes sexual orientation is inclusive; that sufficiently answers readers' questions about biology and sexual orientation. We don't need your WP:Synthesis in the lead or anywhere else in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
So I am invited not to move conclusions found elsewhere in the article to the lede? Because that is synthesis? Isn't that the purpose of the lede to summarize the conclusions? Glennconti (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
"given the difference in sexuality in so many sets of identical twins, sexual orientation cannot be attributed solely to genetic factors." This fact needs to be placed in the lede. Glennconti (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I was going to state that I cannot for the life of me figure out why you want redundancy in the lead. Mentioning the twin aspect hardly makes your proposal any less redundant. The lead is already clear that sexual orientation is likely not attributed solely to genetic factors. But now I see that you want us to state that sexual orientation cannot possibly be attributed solely to genetic factors. Though the vast majority of scientists generally believe that sexual orientation is a combination of biological and social factors (for most people at least), they (most of them anyway) have not stated that a person's sexual orientation cannot possibly be the result of biology only; they believe that there can be almost any explanation for a person's sexual orientation. Any such conclusion that "sexual orientation cannot be attributed solely to genetic factors" is just one conclusion.
I'm going to cease talking to you for now and wait for others to weigh in on this. Flyer22 (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I simply moved a sentence in the body to the lede. Because I thought it deserved more prominence that it was receiving. Apparently if sexual orientation was solely due to genetic factors both siblings of identical twins would have the same sexual orientation in most if not all cases. Am I wrong? Or is it wrong to obfuscate? Glennconti (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
It's been 3 days and no one else has chimed in Flyer22. I have editing privileges and you should not be unilaterally blocking me from editing this article. The second sentence of the lede is over long and confusing. The first part: "A simple and singular determinant for sexual orientation has not been conclusively demonstrated;" means that "the bulk of researchers have concluded that there is not a solely genetic explanation for a particular person's sexual orientation and that other factors, such as societal and/or hormonal, must be involved." There is room for improvement using language that is accessible to a person with less than a biology degree. And what is the purpose of the first sentence? If there is any broad consensus, stating it in the lede is better than implying that the jury is still deliberating. Glennconti (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter that it's been three days. Your sentence belongs nowhere in the lead. I've made my arguments as to why it does not. The lead that you are trying to change is the WP:Consensus version. WP:Consensus is policy and should be adhered to unless new WP:Consensus replaces it. That is not "unilaterally blocking [you] from editing this article"; that is following the rules. If no other person who watches this article/talk page comments to you on this matter here, your next step should be WP:Dispute resolution...without trying to get me to participate. And a good route that doesn't require my participation is WP:RfC. Flyer22 (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Pathogenic hypothesis

There should be something in here about the pathogenic hypothesis. 75.166.184.15 (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

If you can provide medically reliable sources from third-parties to establish this hypothesis' notability and that it is not a crackpot fringe theory, then it should be mentioned in the article. Otherwise, no. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Sanders et al.

please add the 2014 plublished paper: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9385646&fileId=S0033291714002451 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.40.150.178 (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Heterosexual vs. gay material, and poor sourcing

Rafe87 (talk · contribs), regarding this, this, this, this and this, which all looks to be pushing a "gay people are better" angle, we should be going by WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. Read that guideline carefully. From what I've seen, you never follow it. We should not be relying so heavily on WP:Primary sources, and especially not to make sweeping claims about the intelligence level of heterosexual or gay people. Also, inductivist.blogspot.com is not a WP:Reliable source, let alone a WP:MEDRS-compliant source. I realize that research on sexual orientation isn't as active as various other scientific fields (I've noted that above on this talk page), and therefore the relaxed approached noted at WP:MEDDATE comes into play at this article, but that doesn't mean we should accept any and every study on sexual orientation. KateWishing and CFCF, any opinions on this? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should use higher quality (secondary) sources when discussing the intelligence of groups of people. And we might want to note, like this source does in the limitations section, that the IQ differences may simply result from more intelligent gay people being more open about/accepting of their homosexuality. KateWishing (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

"gay people are better" angle

That's an absurd accusation, seeing that it was me who inserted the paragraph about gay men's disadvantage on spatial intelligence tests. Prior to my edits, all differences being mentioned made reference to gay people's advantages only. I'm not going to argue about the distinction between primary and secondary sources, which I don't understand, but all sources included by me on this entry are exactly like the ones that inserted by other editors — peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals. If the sources being used on this entry were appropriate before my edits, then they still are. The Inductivist source, by the way, was on this entry there before any of my edits. I have nothing to do with it. It's funny how you only started to have a problem with it after you (mistakenly) associated it with me.

If you have an objection to any of my edits, articulate them more with more precision, without making reference to guidelines whose relevance to this discussion. How are my sources inappropriate for this entry? Are they being misrepresented? Etc. Start from there. Don't just say you dislike what is being told by those studies — your feelings are irrelevant, those studies are valid regardless of what emotions they arouse from you. Also, refrain from bringing to this debate any resentments you may have nurtured in discussions on other entries, User:Flyer22 Reborn. Much obliged. 177.40.231.23 (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC) (Rafe87)

I don't find it absurd at all; it's exactly what the latest types of edits seem to be pushing. And if you want to understand what I mean about the way you should be editing, then read the policies and guidelines I point to; that's what they are there for. I shouldn't need to reiterate them. Furthermore, bad or poor sourcing in an article does not give you a license to add more bad or poor sourcing to the article. And if you are Rafe87, then sign in. If you are not Rafe87, sign in. Your "It's funny how you only started to have a problem with it after you (mistakenly) associated with me." comment makes it seem like you are Rafe87. For the record, though, nowhere did I state that all those edits were made by the same person. As for your "refrain from bringing to this debate any resentments you may have nurtured in discussions on other entries" comment, which also makes it sound like you are Rafe87 because of our other recent disagreement, that disagreement has nothing to do with this article. Your poor editing does. I bring my experiences to articles, as does every other editor at this site, but I don't let my personal experiences get in the way of how the Wikipedia article should be edited. I've been very clear about disliking WP:Activism editing; I don't care what your cause is, and if you view me as heterosexual, lesbian or bisexual. Various editors have had ideas about what my sexual orientation is (ranging from me being lesbian, heterosexual, asexual, or bisexual) and what my personal views are. And they can keep wondering for all I care, since I keep all of that off Wikipedia. Unlike various others, I don't wear all of that on my sleeve. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
And since you followed me to the Domestic violence article and made this sloppy edit (which I previously reverted when you were an IP), yeah, it's clear you're Rafe87. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
You make it sound like I was hiding this was me. You caught me! But <redact>, I intentionally added my name to the signature to the post above so that it was clear IP was me. Can we stop pretending you're exposing me for a change?
I'm going to re-add the cognitive difference subsection. The gay male advantage on verbal intelligence and disadvantage on spatial intelligence are well-established and uncontroversial. The study showing gay advantage on general intelligence was sourced to a peer-reviewed paper, and is good enough for the entry, and nothing you said show otherwise. Rafe87 (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Read WP:ILLEGIT and keep scrolling down. Expecting editors to know who you are when you are using multiple IPs is problematic. Editing from multiple IPs instead of logging in is problematic because editors will not know it's you unless you are using the same IP ranges and they are familiar with those IP ranges. That is what I mean by you not logging in. As for "The gay male advantage on verbal intelligence and disadvantage on spatial intelligence are well-established and uncontroversial.", your proof for that is where? Also, peer review by itself is not the same thing as literature review or systematic review; WP:MEDRS prefers the latter two. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
You look autistic with this tendency of relying on guidelines over context. <redact>, it's not unreasonable to expect editors to know I'm editing from an IP when I ID with my username every fucking time. Stop obsessing about this issue, you're clearly trying to push this notion that I'm editing Wikipedia using sockpuppets even though I've identified myself every single time I did that (which happened because I was unable to log in, by the way!). Stop being so fucking hostile.

your proof for that is where?

In the studies you and your buddy keep removing. In any case, I never claimed in my edits that the finding was universal - only that some studies had found it. In relation to verbal intelligence measures, I did nothing but add references to the text, which was already there before me. You're removing my edits because I keep inserting more sources. Can you understand how deranged you look? Talk about poor editing! My most substantive edits - including not only sources but also text - was on the spatial intelligence difference, which doesn't preclude the genius here from accusing me of pushing a narrative of gay superiority. Un-fucking-believable. And hostile.
And <redact>, if you dislike Activism editing, stop practicing yourself - stop removing sources just because they don't please your feelz. In the entry on gay male sex practices, you did the fucking same, even going so far as to delete SOURCED RFERENCES (which I've now decided to add back) about the frequency of anal sex among gay men, because, in your own words, you "liked" it better when the entry focused on how anal sex is not the only form of sexual activity among gay men. 177.133.124.33 (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh dear, seems I accidentally posted without logging in. And so another chapter to how I'm using sockpuppets will be added by super sleuth Flyer here. Rafe87 (talk) 06:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I could get you WP:Blocked for the entirety of this mess, since it consists of severe WP:Personal attacks (that stated, even though you clearly meant your autistic commentary to be an attack, it isn't to me). And yet you are calling me hostile. What I have stated above is not hostile in the least, especially compared to how you have behaved in this section. You calling me "honey" is also problematic. You have not "identified [yourself] every single time"; your IP ranges show that. And, in this case, you only identified yourself after I reverted you. Editing while logged out is not necessarily WP:Socking, but it can be problematic; I've already addressed why. I have not removed your edits "because [you] keep inserting more sources." As for the Gay sexual practices article, you are wrong on that as well (as anyone can see), and one editor there thus far has agreed with me on the order of the section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
You have been maniacally hostile this entire fucking time. In your very first contribution to this conversation, you accused me of pushing biased activist editing right away, failing to assume good faith, and failing also to consider my arguments otherwise. You set the tone in this conversation, and I'm responding in kind. Consider not bringing the fire next time if you can't stand the heat. Rafe87 (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Wrong. Noting what your editing is and the problems with it is not being hostile. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree fully with the statement "bad or poor sourcing in an article does not give you a license to add more bad or poor sourcing to the article." When it comes to anything as controversial as homosexuality and intelligence we need to stick to the best possible sources. Satoshi Kanazawa has published extensively on the topic, but has pretty much seen all-round criticism from his peers (example from Intelligence 2013, The Savanna-IQ interaction hypothesis: A critical examination) - which goes to show that it is a very controversial field. Whenever Wikipedia touches upon something controversial we need to work hard to apply a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and to only use the best evidence as directed by our policies and guidelines.
Also Rafe87, 177.40.231.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - you must show some interest in applying Wikipedia's directives when writing on Wikipedia, and if you are either unwilling or incapable of grasping what a secondary source is (Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Respect_secondary_sources) – then you must also accept that your edits will be reverted indiscriminately. CFCF 💌 📧 10:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
That the theory explaining the difference is controversial doesn't mean that the difference itself is controversial. The difference was found in THREE nationally representative surveys. It is going to be re-added. Rafe87 (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Then finding better source won't be an issue, will it? CFCF 💌 📧 19:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
<redact>, you're no one to say which peer-reviewed sources are good for this entry or not. My edit doesn't mention the Savannah theory at all - the one aspect of the study you mentioned that is controversial. It mentioned only the EMPIRICALLY VERIFIED phenomenon of better IQs among gay people. The source will be inserted back. 177.133.124.33 (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
And I suppose you are? Just follow the sourcing guidelines or your edits will be reverted pretty much instantly. CFCF 💌 📧 09:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The onus is on you to show that "the guidelines" require removal of that study. I don't have to make your arguments for you. Rafe87 (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
It has been shown (see the absolutely first comment by Flyer22 Reborn), and multiple editors agree, you are being WP:disruptive – which may be grounds for a block. CFCF 💌 📧 13:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Nothing has been shown by that person. She only vaguely mentioned the guidelines - she failed to point where they show the studies are problematic. And so have you. Rafe87 (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, as seen here and here, JJMC89 is the latest editor to revert Rafe87 thus far. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Because of this, it's time to report Rafe87 at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Go ahead. Let's talk about your obsession with reverting content because it displeases your feelings. And I'm still reverting. Rafe87 (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
So be it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Gareth Griffith-Jones, why did you make this revert of an IP? See above, and this report, for why the IP is justified. All of this is why I reverted you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Doing a spell on Wikipedia:STiki which indicated the removal of references without an explanation other than the unhelpful, "(Stop edit warring; wait until a consensus is reached on the talk page)". Being naturally suspicious of non-registered editors, I followed my instincts. The article is of no interest to me in any way. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 07:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Gareth Griffith-Jones If it does not interest you then it is clearly advisable to see how other editors have reasoned. Seeing the term edit-war in the summary should have given you enough indication that you ought to at least have checked the history page. CFCF 💌 📧 11:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
CFCF—Oh dear, now I wish I had followed my advice to others in similar situations, and ignored this thread—a lecture from a student in Gothenberg, I do not want. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 14:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Gareth Griffith-Jones – I don't see how location or academic affiliation comes into play here – the fact remains that your edits on this page were poor conduct. CFCF 💌 📧 19:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC) 
"poor conduct"? ... your diatribe is unworthy and I shall avoid you, CFCF, in all circumstances from now on. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 09:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Pinging KrakatoaKatie (the administrator who blocked Rafe87 after CFCF reported him for the aforementioned edit warring) that Rafe87 is up to it again; there is a bit of new content in that, but it is mostly the same disputed content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Rafe87 reverted yet again, and I reverted him yet again. He also took the matter to this, this and this WikiProject. It should also have been taken to WP:Med while he was at it, but the only other medical editor (other than KateWishing and CFCF) who has the patience to deal with sourcing for sexual orientation issues is Jytdog. I told Rafe87 that if he keeps adding this material to the article, my next step is WP:ANI, since this content is disputed, he was blocked for edit warring over it, and has vowed above and in the article's edit history to add it no matter what. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sax-sex/201004/why-are-so-many-girls-lesbian-or-bisexual/comments
  2. ^ “I Savic.” Molecular Psychiatry. 2003. 7 November 2008. <http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v7/n4/full/4001094a.html>.
  3. ^ “Robert Burton.” Salon.com. 5 October 2008. 28 September 2008. <http://www.salon.com/env/mind_reader/2008/09/12/gay_neurology/index1.html>.
  4. ^ “Robert Burton.” Salon.com. 5 October 2008. 28 September 2008. <http://www.salon.com/env/mind_reader/2008/09/12/gay_neurology/index1.html>.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biology_and_sexual_orientation/Archive_3&oldid=1136565371"