Jump to content

Talk:Biology and sexual orientation/Archive 4

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

Exotic becomes erotic section

(Note: The citation given for the section's first paragraph is Bem's year 2000 paper on the exotic becomes erotic (EBE) theory. The citation also links to a PDF of Bem's seminal 1996 paper on the EBE theory).

The second paragraph of the section is a lengthy discussion of studies showing a higher rate of childhood gender non-conformity (CGN) in homosexuals. The problem is only reference [48] (Bailey, J.M.; Zucker, K.J. (1995). "Childhood sex-typed behavior and sexual orientation: A conceptual analysis and quantitative review". Developmental Psychology 31 (1): 43–55) and reference [50] (Zucker, K.J. (1990) Gender identity disorders in children: clinical descriptions and natural history. p.1–23) are actually cited in Bem's 1996 and 2000 papers. From what I've read, none of the other CGN studies have been cited as evidence for the theory (by Bem or other researchers) nor do any of the studies themselves purport to be evidence for the EBE theory. In other words, the relevant paragraph combines material from multiple studies to imply that the EBE theory has sufficient evidence for it, a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the CGN studies. This is improper synthesis.

Even the two studies that are properly cited (i.e., [48], [50]) are mentioned only in passing in Bem's 1996 & 2000 papers. The section does not mention how the EBE theory is based almost completely on a survey from San Francisco (i.e., Bell et al. (1981), AKA "the San Francisco study” in Bem's papers), the use of which by Bem was thoroughly critiqued in Peplau et al. (1998). I will try to add this info as well as criticism by Peplau and colleagues when I find the time.

I feel the studies on childhood gender non-conformity are noteworthy and could be moved somewhere else in the article; they should not be kept in the EBE section because it gives the misleading impression that they are scientifically-recognised empirical support for the EBE theory. —Human10.0 (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding what you intend to add will help balance the section out. I'm not sure about moving the childhood gender nonconformity material, though, which is on-topic with the section discussing childhood gender nonconformity, especially if we are going to move it in a way that does not tie it to a biology and sexual orientation argument. I feel that it should be included in context. The section you take issue with states, "The theory is based in part on the frequent finding that a majority of gay men and lesbians report being gender-nonconforming during their childhood years." Do you doubt that the theory is based in part on that matter? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your response Flyer22 Reborn. I would like to clarify that while I am proposing moving the CGN material, I am not saying we should move it without emphasizing its link with biology & sexual orientation. I should also clarify that I think studies [48] & [50] should be mentioned in the EBE section as they have been cited as evidence for the EBE theory. I feel the rest of the CGN material however is not on-topic since the section is not about CGN, it's about Bem's EBE theory, and the material has not been linked with the theory by researchers. Currently, the material is mentioned in a way that suggests it is evidence of the EBE theory and has been recognized by science as such (which is not true).
In my opinion, on-topic would be if the article had a separate section on CGN that emphasized the biological basis of CGN, mentioned studies showing higher rates of CGN in homosexuals than heterosexuals and then mentioned (but not explained) the EBE theory as a theory that integrated certain CGN findings (i.e., the findings of studies specifically cited as evidence of the theory, e.g., Bell et al. (1981), [48], [50], etc.) to explain how a homosexual orientation could develop in humans. The section could then link to the EBE section, where the EBE theory could be discussed in detail with its critique.
Regarding your question, I do not doubt that the theory is based on CGN-related findings (the ones cited in Bem's papers). I only mentioned that the EBE theory is based mostly on the San Francisco study and that I will "add this info" to the article so that if any editors have reservations about the addition of that info, they can voice them on the talk page (and I can address them) before the actual addition of info to the article.
PS- Sorry about replying so late, something came up irl due to which I had to take a break from editing. —Human10.0 (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Human10.0, for this issue, I still don't see the need for two separate sections, but I would be somewhat fine with including the material in the way you proposed to include/structure it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Human10.0, I added in "somewhat" before "fine" because of the fact that I'm not keen on addressing the EBE and CGN aspects in two different places in this case; this is because they partially tie together, and because one term might be linked in another section and therefore result in a WP:Overlinking issue. Also, as you can see at the Childhood gender nonconformity article, the two topics are currently discussed together there as well. Right now, I'm thinking that the Exotic becomes erotic section should only mention the childhood gender nonconformity material that relates to it, and that we leave the other childhood gender nonconformity material to the Childhood gender nonconformity article to deal with. If it seems that the Biology and sexual orientation article needs a childhood gender nonconformity section, like the Environment and sexual orientation article currently has one, only then will we add one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your input Flyer22 Reborn. I thought about your proposal and feel it's alright if the CGN material unrelated to the EBE theory is removed from this article & left for the CGN article to deal with.
Regarding the EBE section, I feel its second paragraph could read something like:
"Bem sought support from published literature but did not present new data testing his theory.[Peplau et al. (1998)] Research cited by him as evidence of the Exotic Becomes Erotic theory include a study by Bell et al. (1981)[Peplau et al. (1998)] and studies showing the frequent finding that a majority of gay men and lesbians report being gender-nonconforming during their childhood years. A meta-analysis of 48 studies showed childhood gender nonconformity to be the strongest predictor of a homosexual orientation for both men and women.[48] In six "prospective" studies—that is, longitudinal studies that began with gender-nonconforming boys at about age 7 and followed them up into adolescence and adulthood— 63% of the gender nonconforming boys had a homosexual or bisexual orientation as adults.[50]"
Is such a paragraph okay? What improvements could be made in it? —Human10.0 (talk) 08:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
That's fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Wording

Human10.0, in regards to this edit, I see no reason not to use Alan P. Bell's full name, and am surprised that you would object to it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator: The basic format for in-line citations is [first author’s last name] followed by "et al." Using Bell's full name is unnecessary. Also, kindly ping me next time if you want to talk to me; I might have missed this post entirely if I hadn't checked up on this talk page. —Human10.0 (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
This isn't an in-line citation, Human10.0. It's a mention of someone's name in the text of the article. As it is the only mention, there is no reason Bell's name should not be given in full. (Just as there would be no reason for the sentence, "In 1990, Dick Swaab and Hofman reported a difference in the size of the suprachiasmatic nucleus between homosexual and heterosexual men" to be abbreviated to, "In 1990, Swaab and Hofman reported a difference in the size of the suprachiasmatic nucleus between homosexual and heterosexual men"). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
FreeKnowledgeCreator: I guess the proper word for it is 'in-text citation'? Regardless of what the technical term is, WP:MOS states that "[s]tyle and formatting should be consistent within an article." If you check the article, you will notice that (just like in the case of Bell et al.) works by multiple authors have been consistently cited by mentioning the first author’s last name followed by the abbreviation "et al." e.g. Sanders et al., Hu et al., Bailey et al., Rice et al., Mustanski et al., Ellis et al., Bocklandt et al. & Roselli et al. None of these authors' full names are mentioned because they are unnecessary and if they were mentioned, they would have just added clutter to the article, making it harder to read. By making the phrase "Bell et al." link to Alan Bell's wiki article, I think we have adequately avoided ambiguity, in line with WP:MOS.
The "Dick Swaab and Hofman" example you've given isn't a particularly good one because while it mentions Swaab's full name, it doesn't mention Hofman's full name (I don't think that citation is following any particular style guide). Other reasons for why I support the "Bell et al." wording as opposed to the "Alan P. Bell et al." wording is that the format [first author's surname followed by "et al."] is how studies are cited in most journals, it's easier to understand and most importantly, Peplau et al. (the study used as a citation for the verifiable "Bell et al." sentence) uses "Bell et al.," not "Alan P. Bell et al." Someone checking out Peplau et al. will just be perplexed because that study doesn't mention Bell's full name ("Alan P. Bell" or even "Alan Bell") at all. It repeatedly references his Sexual Preference study simply as "Bell et. al"
Using "Alan P. Bell et al." serves no purpose other than drawing undue attention towards Bell. I don't feel anyone is eager to know what his full name is, and even if someone were, his own wiki article is linked in the phrase "Bell et al." so there should be no confusion about what his full name is. —Human10.0 (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I do not believe that mentioning Bell's full name makes the article in any way harder to read, and it is not clear to me why readers would not want to know what his full name was. In fact, I'd assume that readers who have any interest in Bell's work at all would find it quite important to know what his full name was. I am not interested in discussing this subject any further, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Biology and sexual orientation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Biology and sexual orientation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:Student editing

Giatrix (talk · contribs) and Biostudent789 (talk · contribs), if you two are students, discuss the matters -- what you want to add -- here. Even if you are not students, discuss matters here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Apparent copypasting in "Samoa" paragraph

The paragraph beginning "Vasey and VanderLaan (2010) tested the theory on the Pacific island of Samoa..." appears to be copypasted in part from the second referenced source. I didn't look too far down the reference chain to figure out if this was in error or not, but I figured I should raise the issue here for a more thorough check. -Arzg (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Confusion of information

I have been looking that, there is a information where it have been said that Hypotheses for the impact of the post-natal social environment on sexual orientation, however, are weak, especially for males. And  for support of the information The journal article has been referred. But i didn't find any info in the journal article where the information has been supported. Fahim fanatic (talk) 06:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

If the reference provided doesn't support the statement it's supposed to be supporting, either remove it, add {{Failed verification}} after the </ref> tag, or remove the entire sentence and the reference. Primefac (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Primefac, I'm not sure what Fahim fanatic is talking about. As noted on Fahim fanatic's talk page, there appears to be a language barrier; so that might be a part of it. The review that Fahim fanatic pointed to above, which I also cited on my talk page, clearly states that "there is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial causes of sexual orientation than social causes" and "the hypothesis that causal influences on sexual orientation are nonsocial rather than social is better supported for male than for female sexual orientation. [...] Although it would also be less surprising to us (and to others; see Baumeister, 2000) to discover that social environment affects female sexual orientation and related behavior, that possibility must be scientifically supported rather than assumed." Like I note on my talk page, "Basically, male sexual orientation is significantly better understood than female sexual orientation, and there's a better chance that social environment plays a part in affecting female sexual orientation than it does in affecting male sexual orientation." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
It also states "Both hypotheses require direct scientific support; neither can claim confirmation solely because support for the other is weak." It is definitely clear that the social environment evidence is weak. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:Student editing

Yzhyjysm, make sure that you and anyone else from your class who intends to edit this article reviews WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:MEDRS. In other words, try to avoid using WP:Primary sources. Stick to secondary sources and/or tertiary sources. For example, literature reviews. Regarding this, Wikipedia is not a WP:Reliable source. Cite a reliable source directly. I reverted that edit by you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Misleading quote in Twin Studies section

Currently the paragraph reads ″They studied 289 pairs of identical twins (monozygotic, or from one fertilized egg) and 495 pairs of fraternal twins (dizygotic, or from two fertilized eggs) and found concordance rates for same-sex attraction of only 7.7% for male identical twins and 5.3% for females, a pattern which they say "does not suggest genetic influence independent of social context".″, but upon examining that statement (while I should note isn't actually present in the specific citation provided, though it is indeed from the published paper's abstract) I found that it wasn't said in reference to monozygotic twin pairs at all, but rather in reference to opposite-sex twin and non-twin sibling pairs. That's a pretty substantial difference, so I'm going to go ahead and remove the tail end of the paragraph.

For reference, the complete quote is: "The etiology of human same-sex romantic attraction is generally framed in terms of (1) social influences, (2) genetic influences, or (3) hormonal influences. In this article, we show that adolescent males who are opposite-sex twins are twice as likely as expected to report same-sex attraction; and that the pattern of concordance (similarity across pairs) of same-sex preference for sibling pairs does not suggest genetic influence independent of social context. Our data falsify the hormone transfer hypothesis by isolating a single condition that eliminates the opposite-sex twin effect we observe the presence of an older same-sex sibling. We also consider and reject a speculative evolutionary theory that rests on observing birth-order effects on same-sex orientation. In contrast, our results support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences." TheMurgy (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding lines to cromosome section latest science magazine studies.

@Crossroads1: The research article on science magazine [1] states, "In all cases, the variance explained by the polygenic scores was extremely low (<1%); these scores could not be used to accurately predict sexual behavior in an individual.". I want to add it in the article. Lazy-restless 15:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

"Hundreds or thousands" is justified here: Behavioral traits, like sexual behavior and orientation, are only partially genetic in nature. They are shaped by hundreds or thousands of genetic variants, each with a very small effect, yet they are also shaped in large part by a person’s environment and life experiences. We can therefore say with confidence that there is neither a single genetic determinant of nor single gene for same-sex sexual behavior or sexual orientation. To the extent that sexuality is influenced by genetics, it is more likely that hundreds or thousands of genetic variants are involved. These variants, together with the environment and experiences, shape outcomes like same-sex sexual behavior. From the paper: Although only a few loci passed the stringent statistical corrections for genome-wide multiple testing and were replicated in other samples, our analyses show that many loci underlie same-sex sexual behavior in both sexes. The "many" refers to the hundreds or thousands. You should not have added your preferred quote yet. It is not enough to say your side on the talk page; you have to get consensus that it should be added, which you did not get yet. Since your preferred sentence appears to contradict the 8-25% figure, I think it might be out of context, so I need closer examination. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
None but only you cry for concensus for every clear matter. Lazy-restless 19:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The wording is a little vague (how polygenic is "polygenic"?), but the two paragraphs are talking about different datasets; the latter para is about replication results. If polygenic means set of individually significant SNPs, then the latter paragraph says that the set explains less than 1% of the variance in the datasets they tested. This is consistent with their significant SNPs results in their dataset. However, in their dataset, looking at the combined effect of all common SNPs (typically MAF greater than 5%) they found 8-25%. It would have been nice of them to report this figure in the other datasets.
So what is the upshot? the summary is that, in their dataset, no single SNP, or even a small set of SNPs, explains much of the variance. That is, the association is not Mendelian or oligogenic. However, the combined effect of all common SNPs does explain a significant percentage of the variance. These sorts of broadly associated phenotypes are usually termed "complex". Other types of complex phenotypes include height and blood pressure. The conclusion is that while there is no single gene associated with same-sex behavior, there is a genetic contribution to the phenotype.
The 32% from family studies shows an even higher association, but will undoubtedly have both genetic and non-genetic associations. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Mark viking. To make sure I understand correctly, the <1% variance applies to the 5 major, specific loci, but all the many as-yet-unspecified loci together are 8-25% of the variance in individual differences in same-sex sexual behavior. Is this correct? -Crossroads- (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes Crossroads1, your understanding of my interpretation is correct. Typically, there are tens of thousands of common SNPs, but I haven't dug into the supplements to find the number they actually assayed. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 00:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thanks so much for weighing in. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
For the record, I agree with Crossroads1. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@Crossroads1, Flyer22 Reborn, and Mark viking:, see this. All your edit attempts based on sexuality and orientation seems pseudointellectual to me. Lazy-restless 14:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
You have got to be kidding me. You link us to a totally unreliable blog by some preacher, while we point to a paper published in one of the most prestigious scientific journals there is, and you call us pseudointellectual. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
The original paper includes: "We performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) on 477,522 individuals, revealing five loci significantly associated with same-sex sexual behavior. In aggregate, all tested genetic variants accounted for 8 to 25% of variation in same-sex sexual behavior, only partially overlapped between males and females, and do not allow meaningful prediction of an individual’s sexual behavior." Isn't it important? Lazy-restless 22:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
No. The sex differences aspect is already mentioned, and the "not allowing meaningful prediction" is only because most of the variance comes from many small differences, which have not been specifically identified. In other words, we do not have enough knowledge to look at someone's genome and predict an increased likelihood of homosexuality. But we do know nevertheless that genetics play a significant role. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
One of the highly educated molicular biologist of our country (Bangladesh) said that. this type of change in traits which found can also he found in smokers, alcoholics, norcotics takers, and they are iinherited by the lifestyle of men thus it is not inherited innately and are not permanent, it is a very common temporary adaption of genome variants according to lifestyle. He also said that most of the research result is sindicated by patronizers of the research, this research also, but it is competatively more but not completely neutral, because the leading academics like herverd and cambridge were involved in it, but they also published and written the paper in a cool style with some slightly clever partiality so that lgbt groups remain comperatively cool. Lazy-restless 13:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what the Bangladeshi Biologist said. it cannot be reliable source in here. If you think you can not explain all things from your own knowledge or from the research article then you can mention him (your high qualified  biologist) to come here and continue the argument.Sorghum 17:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by প্রলয়স্রোত (talk • contribs)

About a word

In the essay named Exotic becomes erotic, it has been mentioned that, "According to Bem, this feeling of difference will evoke psychological arousal when the child is near members of the gender which it considers as being "different". Bem theorizes that this psychological arousal will later be transformed into sexual arousal: children will become sexually attracted to the gender which they see as different ("exotic").

In here what does mean of that different? Is it saying about opposite gender of child or vice versa?Can anyone  explain it deliberately? i didn't get many article about that theory in google. Sorghum 04:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by প্রলয়স্রোত (talk • contribs)

We are not a forum, but the idea is that psychological gender traits are themselves the cause of learning a certain sexual orientation, straight or gay. It is not widely held and has been criticized, which the article should be clearer about. Also, the section should probably be moved to environment and sexual orientation. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Crossroads Since the EBE theory is better covered in environment and sexual orientation, should it be on this article? If there is going to be a theoretical section it should probably touch on the various biological theories such as prenatal hormone theories, epigenetic theories (William Rice) etc? EBE is freudian/psychological with some biological foundation. It's a huge section for a hypothesis that very few take seriously. --Sxologist (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Feel free also to add Lehmiller's take on it, as I mentioned over at that article. Crossroads -talk- 04:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Should it be removed or kept though? I'd rather not end up with a large discussion about EBE on the biology page ;) --Sxologist (talk) 08:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't compare it to Freudian beliefs. Anyway, I feel that it should be retained and tweaked, per what I stated at Talk:Environment and sexual orientation. To repeat what I stated, there: "I never saw an academic state that Bem argues that people aren't born with a sexual orientation, like Justin J. Lehmiller does (in the 'The Psychology of Human Sexuality' source). They speak of Bem talking of how people are predisposed to have a certain sexual orientation; but Justin J. Lehmiller does mention that aspect. As noted by Lehmiller, Bem speaks of biological predisposition. And biological predisposition concerns innateness. Lehmiller notes that Bem's theory "links biological and environmental influences. Also, the 'The SAGE Handbook of Identities' source relays that Bem "does not intend his model as an absolute prescription for all individuals, but rather as a modal or average explanation. He suggests that biological variables (these could be genetic, and/or development[al]) affect early temperament, which in turn influence the development of preferences for sex typical or atypical play. Such preferences lead in turn to feeling different from opposite or same-sex peers. He further postulates that individuals develop attractions to those from who they feel different during childhood. Thus, early gender interests lead to later physiological or sexual attractions."
This theory is a significant theory/has substantial coverage and is relevant to both biological and environmental aspects of sexual orientation. Also, if including Lehmiller's commentary, it should be given WP:In-text attribution. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Per sources on the theory, I've always seen it as more of a biological than psychological sociological theory. It happens to be one about how biology interacts with social environment, which is something the nature and nurture and behavioural genetics topics discuss. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
In academia it is not a credible theory. Same sex sexual orientation does indeed correlate with childhood gender atypicality, but there is no solid evidence it is caused by it. Instead, they are both caused by an underlying common pathway, failure to neurologically masculinize the brain. Daryl Bem’s career of proposing equally bogus hypothesis including his ludicrous support for psychic phenomena and violating accepting scientific research norms. In short, Bem is a pseudoscientific crank that has led others to waste many thousands of research hours to debunk him. Bem believed in precognition, or humans predicting future events, despite there being zero evidence of such. Regarding EBE, there has been no additional research that shows evidence of clear pathways to affirm this model. Bem's drew his own conclusions out of data which were highly criticized. Simply because it's had coverage doesn't make it valid, especially since most of the coverage was critical? Edit: to be clear I'm not saying it needs to be removed entirely, but we should probably have other theoretical models on sexual orientation if it's going to be included. --Sxologist (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I stated "significant theory." Not "credible theory." The two are not automatically the same thing. And when it comes to the sexual orientation literature, we would be remiss to neglect mentioning this theory in either this article or the Environment and sexual orientation article. Like I told you at Talk:Environment and sexual orientation, "[This theory has] been around for a long time now and is covered in secondary and tertiary sources. Plenty of academic sources [...] cover 'exotic becomes erotic.' That is why it's very WP:Due to include it [...]. We don't exclude a theory or hypothesis simply because it's been criticized. Whether or not to include such material should be based on our WP:Due policy. Even content that is generally considered fringe by academics and falls under our WP:Fringe category may get space in a Wikipedia article or have a Wikipedia article about it. Also note that the 'Psychology of Human Sexuality' source states that Bem's theory received a lot of praise, which is something that should also be noted on Wikipedia [...]." And so far, with regard to what most scientists think of the theory, we only have what Lehmiller states. And I'm the one who supplied that source. What sources do you have about what most scientists think of the theory? Does the "A Critique of Bem's 'Exotic Becomes Erotic' Theory of Sexual Orientation" source speak on what most scientists think of it? The section in question has three paragraphs. If three paragraphs are needed to sufficiently address this topic, then so be it. As for one's personal beliefs on what causes sexual orientation, it's best to keep our personal beliefs off the talk page. Although scientists favor biologically-based theories, they certainly don't definitively state the cause of sexual orientation. Any other theoretical biological model on sexual orientation that is as prominent as Bem's theory is something I am fine with including. If it's only covered by primary sources, it's a no for me. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I never mentioned the views of all scientists, rather, pointed to the fact that there hasn't been any research or papers to say "this theory has a lot of weight". I was pointing out that scientists had to waste countless hours debunking his other theories such as precognition. It's largely taught that the flaws in the theory are just too many for it to hold weight. It didn't need the weighing in of more researchers since the criticism essentially dealt with most of it. It highlights many more errors which I did not include on the WP article. If only LehMiller mentions it, is it really a significant theory? For example it didn't even get a mention in Bailey's 2016 review? Bailey is well aware of the theory, since he mentions it in a 2000 paper and Bem included some of his work in his original paper. It received some mention in the late 90's, but I haven't seen modern consideration of it aside from LehMillers mention in a book.
With regards to other theories, there is certainly high quality coverage of epigenetic and hormone timing theories which are both based in evidence and speculation like EBE, but they're not drawing contradictory conclusions from social-science surveys. I also wouldn't say I was including my opinion, but rather I'm highlighting the mainstream teaching of psychology. It's pretty easy to find online flashcards and notes from psychology students which only mention EBE in a critical manner. --Sxologist (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, I know that you didn't state "all scientists." Neither did I. You did, however, state that "It's a huge section for a hypothesis that very few take seriously" and "In academia it is not a credible theory." So you were clearly stating that most scientists do not accept the theory. When I commented that "so far, with regard to what most scientists think of the theory, we only have what Lehmiller states" and "What sources do you have about what most scientists think of the theory?", it was because we are supposed to go by what secondary or tertiary sources state. We go by what they state on what most scientists think, including what is fringe. You asked, "If only Lehmiller mentions it, is it really a significant theory?" A simple search on Google Books shows that Lehmiller is not the only one who mentions it. If Lehmiller were the only one who mentions it, I wouldn't have stated, "Plenty of academic sources [...] cover 'exotic becomes erotic.' That is why it's very WP:Due to include it [...]." You and I must be defining "significant" differently. I mean "prominent theory." A synonym for "prominent" is "well-known." Just going by the Lehmiller source alone, we see the impact this theory had and why. And that source doesn't paint the theory as harshly as you do. If you mean that only Lehmiller speaks on what most scientists think regarding it, then one should then question why other sources haven't commented on most scientists not supporting it. So, yes, Lehmiller's statements are subject to WP:Weight and are why it's better to relay them with in-text attribution. As seen here, Bem responds to the "A Critique of Bem's 'Exotic Becomes Erotic' Theory of Sexual Orientation" in the same journal.
The sexual orientation research is slow overall, which is why you cited the "A Critique of Bem's 'Exotic Becomes Erotic' Theory of Sexual Orientation" source, which is from 1998, instead of a more recent source criticizing it. This 2010 "Social Psychology" source, from Cengage Learning, page 379, says that the theory has sketchy support, but also that it needs more research. And this 2001 (reprint) "The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation" source, from OUP USA, page 249, while criticizing the theory, states, "Despite its shortcomings, exotic-become-erotic theory does have an important advantage over the biological theories discussed in chapters 5 through 7. As Bem (1996a, 327-330) notes, the various theories that are part of the emerging research program suffer from an explanatory gap: none of them constitute a complete theory of how people develop sexual orientations. [...] Compared to his rivals, then, Bem's theory has the virtue of being more complete; exotic becomes erotic is at least a serious and complete theory of how people develop sexual orientations." And no doubt, this is why, as Lehmiller notes, the theory was praised.
Regarding your opinion, you stated, "Instead, they are both caused by an underlying common pathway, failure to neurologically masculinize the brain." We do not relay that as fact. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying your view. Not sure what that defense of EBE is supposed to prove. Edward Stein, according to Amazon is a 'philosopher'. Where he draws those conclusions from is questionable, since the google book in question has no citations and only provides limited access to certain pages. As one person points out: "imbalance affects the entire work and distorts every nuance and angle." and "Stein has deliberate perversion of looking at sexuality -- and same-sex sexuality -- as "deviant" and thus a continuation of "queer studies." That is a philosopher's perogative, but like so many queer theorists, "assertion" is a merely a premise that still needs to be demonstrated. Playing "god of the gaps" with science simply because EBE provides a more cohesive explanation does not give a theory any "virtue". Finding one writers defense of it in a 1999 book, from someone without any background related to science? It is mentioned in other books, but there are no entire books dedicated to "exotic become erotic". On the other hand there are entire books written by biologists dedicated to biological explanations, which point out that the psychosocial environment is more than likely a factor in whether or not someone will identify with their attraction, rather than them being the cause of their attraction.
And my bad, the part that (my 'opinion') was supposed to be in quote marks and is attributable to someone else, which you will see it if you google that term. This isn't about my personal beliefs, it's about the fact that edits to the sexual orientation articles are at times highly ideologically motivated. People with no background in psychology, medicine and biology are injecting fringe theories as though they are the dominant train of thought in psychology, when they are most definitely not. The inclusion of EBE while there is no mention of other theories which come from actual biologists is my whole problem with it. --Sxologist (talk) 05:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Clarification: sorry, I don't want to latch on to a view point and argue over irrelevant details. I would actually prefer if the second and third paragraphs were adjusted or merged, since the second paragraph of EBE appears to be referring to the 1998 criticism? If I can just tidy those paragrahphs up, include perspectives from LeVay and Lehmiller, include the 2010 criticism I'm sure that would be adequate. --Sxologist (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
You stated, "Finding one writers defense of it in a 1999 book." I cited The Mismeasure of Desire because it complements what Lehmiller, who is qualified in this field, states about the theory having been praised. Also, I clearly mentioned that "The Mismeasure of Desire" criticizes the theory. That it takes the time to give the theory some credit doesn't overshadow its criticism of the theory. What I am stating is that although the theory is criticized, it is a prominent theory with regard biological models of sexual orientation and sources like Lehmiller note that it does have some validity. Yes, Lehmiller states that most scientists reject it, but Lehmiller doesn't dismiss the theory in the way you have done. And the same goes for some other sources that discuss it. As for "psychosocial environment"? Scientists have repeatedly stated that if social environment plays a role in sexual orientation, it is a small role, but they have not ruled out social environment, especially given their belief that sexual orientation is the result of a complex interplay between biology and environment (not just natal environment). And "not ruling it out" especially goes for women...as made clear by the aforementioned Bailey et al. review.
As for what you have planned for the section, maybe propose the change via your sandbox or on this talk page first? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
And so you know, I agree that "People with no background in psychology, medicine and biology are injecting fringe theories as though they are the dominant train of thought in psychology, when they are most definitely not." Crossroads and I have seen this. I would not suggest that "The Mismeasure of Desire" be used in the article; it's not up to my sourcing standard. But this is a talk page, and so I cited it for reasons I noted above. I'll look over what other sources (not just those found on Google Books), and preferably those who are experts in the field, state on "exotic becomes erotic" later. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, and to clarify I wasn't saying social environment has no role to play. Coming and editing with the belief that it is 100% biological is just as unscientific. It's pretty clear it varies from person to person and is particularly more important in female development of non-heterosexual orientation. I did precede my sentence with 'more than likely', however I will admit that sounds too endorsing of a particular view. Of course, some scientists do believe it's set very early and overwhelmingly biological... so sometimes that leads people talk in hyperbole (including me). i.e. if some men are 80-90% wired in that direction then the environmental factors likely won't derail them growing up homosexual. Many don't think EBE explains that, since as the data shows, most gay men have male friends. Anyways, my main issue at this point is the second and third paragraphs could be merged/shortened since the former is essentially a soft-core version of the latter. --Sxologist (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm okay with having EBE discussed here then, but the weight on it needs to be reduced. Sxologist, I support your proposal to tidy those paragraphs up, include perspectives from LeVay and Lehmiller, [and] include the 2010 criticism. Another thing is that I can see that the "Biological theories of cause of sexual orientation" section does suffer from WP:Undue weight, because it spends little time discussing the academically highly favored prenatal hormone theory, but goes on at length about EBE. So in addition to the adjustments I just mentioned, I think the prenatal hormone theory should be explained in greater depth, and other well-sourced biological theories should indeed be added.

This text under EBE should probably be taken out of there: A meta-analysis of 48 studies showed childhood gender nonconformity to be the strongest predictor of a homosexual orientation for both men and women.[70] In six "prospective" studies—that is, longitudinal studies that began with gender-nonconforming boys at about age 7 and followed them up into adolescence and adulthood— 63% of the gender nonconforming boys had a homosexual or bisexual orientation as adults.[71] Unless these papers say that their results support EBE, having them under EBE is WP:Synthesis. However, since these are good secondary academic sources, these should probably be moved elsewhere in the article rather than cut entirely.

As a general comment/word of advice, whenever we upgrade the coverage of a topic in an article, it is good to check articles that "overlap" to make sure that the coverage there is also updated. For example, we'll make sure that EBE is discussed the same in all the articles that mention it. And yes, I can concur that fringe theories have been a problem in the topic of sexuality. And simply being outdated can occur across Wikipedia. Crossroads -talk- 06:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

In the discussion now seen at Talk:Biology and sexual orientation/Archive 4#Exotic becomes erotic section, it was mentioned by Human10.0 that "the two studies that are properly cited (i.e., [48], [50]) are mentioned only in passing in Bem's 1996 & 2000 papers." As noted there, I feel that the theory's connection to childhood gender nonconformity should continue to be stated in the section. Lehmiller also mentions that connection. In the previous discussion, I concluded my commentary, in part, by stating, "I'm thinking that the Exotic becomes erotic section should only mention the childhood gender nonconformity material that relates to it, and that we leave the other childhood gender nonconformity material to the Childhood gender nonconformity article to deal with." If specific mention of the studies aren't needed, I'm fine with removing them, but I do feel that the section should continue to state that research has found that childhood gender nonconformity is the strongest predictor of a homosexual orientation for both men and women; this gives the section needed context. And, again, the current section is only three paragraphs long. So I'm not sure how much can be cut and still adequately cover the topic. So I would still like to see a draft of proposed changes first. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
We should then cite Bem, Lehmiller, or someone else (preferably not Bem because secondary sources are better) to show what Bem argued. But childhood gender nonconformity is also argued to be a support for other biological theories as well. We should not make it appear that childhood gender nonconformity only supports EBE. And I still stand by what I said about the current presentation of those studies being improper synthesis, and the need for more weight to be added on other theories. That said, if you'd rather have Sxologist post a draft here first, that's fine. Crossroads -talk- 16:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Definitions for environment influence

Sxologist, in your sandbox, you currently state state "social environment, this could include rearing styles, parenting, societal acceptance." But, as you know, that's not all that social environment means with regard to sexual orientation or behavior. It also means how genes interact with social environment (including individual, non-shared environmental experiences), as in the case of behavioral genetics (although behavioral genetics cover more than one thing) or something like the "exotic becomes erotic" theory.

As for your latest above comments, I will get back to you on that. I need to catch up with my watchlist and then log off Wikipedia. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

My sandbox is clearly a scatterbrain copy-paste working point from which I work up from. There are numerous sentences which are not even finished, nor legible, nor correct – and I know this - hence the disclaimer at the top of my sandbox. The sentence actually makes a lot more sense when you know it was with regards to twin studies, and should have read ‘shared environment’ rather than ‘social environment’, hence the confusion. The sentence is valid in that respect. Just because it’s in my sandbox doesn’t mean I would copy that into an article. It would have appreciated a response to the concerns I raised above, rather than being called out for something I wrote in the middle of the night in my sandbox... by the way, it actually pertained to the Environment and sexual orientation article and not this one. I understand it’s public, but if you read my other sentences in my sandbox, they at times make no sense or are unfinished – that’s just the way I work. Regardless, it wouldn’t have ever copied something that poorly written into an article. I‘m going to refrain from making rough edits in my sandbox again, I really thought the whole point of a sandbox was that you were allowed to be rough with your edits and not be criticized? In no way did I say “hey go look at this proposal on my talk page”. Sorry to be defensive, the simple fact is that I did take offence. I appreciate your corrections and comments (and your adjustments to my edits), but as you point out, I know there are other variables at play and nothing about my sandbox was ready for someone to look at and critique. Thanks. Sxologist (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
By the way, as I highlighted here, I intended to propose section explaining what the environment meant, for the article Environment and sexual orientation. The inclusion of that section in my sandbox was a brief thing I put in there last night to remind myself to finish doing that. But I understand where your concern came from. Sxologist (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (old "ec" because I was away from my computer for sometime). Like I stated on your talk page, it did not occur to me that you would be offended or uncomfortable by me mentioning your sandbox. Also, I am in the habit of discussing article matters on article talk pages. I wanted to go ahead and address that aspect in case you edited the section in question very soon. This means that I wouldn't have to address it after the fact (after it's already been added). The content you copied and pasted to your sandbox was taken from this current "Empirical studies" section of the Biology and sexual orientation article, which does not begin with information about twins. The twins subsection is a little below it. I can see that your sandbox, like many sandboxes, especially in the beginning, is "a scatterbrain copy-paste working point." But people commonly add pieces to their sandbox, work on those specific pieces, and then add those specific pieces to the article. You know, while the rest of the sandbox is "a scatterbrain copy-paste working point." You had recently edited the "Empirical studies" section. It is only logical for me to think you would edit it again very soon. And as for "it actually pertained to the Environment and sexual orientation article"? There has been overlap with your edits on this topic. And what I stated pertains to either article.
I had a health episode while reading your response and trying to respond in turn. So I need to get off Wikipedia as soon as possible for the day. But I just want to state that you blew this out of proportion. There was no calling you out on my part or criticizing you. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. I do not think you meant to cause offense. I shouldn't have said you 'called me out' and instead, assumed good faith. For context, I was pulling an all nighter while doing some work and editing at the same time, and that is part of the reason I snapped. Again, I did try to de-escelate by removing the comment but I see that's not up to me to do. I never once thought my sandbox was 'private' but I did not think it was being monitored per se. Additionally, I am operating on past comments where you have said you were snappy with regards to my edits (I have also expressed that this wasn't a bad thing). Sorry to hear about your health. Sxologist (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
No, you didn't bring on the episode.
As for "operating on past comments where [I] have said [I was] snappy with regards to [your] edits"? Yes, here, I stated, "I'll try not to come across as snippy regarding your edits in the future." But I didn't mean that I was battling with myself to not be snippy when it comes to edits you make. I just meant that I was snippy in that case, and that I would try not to be snippy with regard to your editing in the future. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, userspace pages like sandboxes aren't private, not even private property, since things like spam aren't allowed even there. It is available for development of encyclopedic content of course. I generally don't spend time commenting on sandboxes, since it's usually unfinished and whatever issues there are with the text might get resolved by the author anyway. If the issue remains after it is officially proposed or mainspaced, then I spend time on it. Crossroads -talk- 04:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Duly noted, and thank you. Sxologist (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal of content

@প্রলয়স্রোত: I undid your edit which removed the 'near perfect quasi experiment'. As I wrote in the edit summary, this is not a "study that has not been replicated". It is a meta-analysis of seven follow up studies of boys who turned into girls at birth, and given estrogen. Don't accuse something of "not being replicated" when it has been replicated dozens of times, but these 7 are the only ones who have provided sexual orientation. I suggest you read the David Reimer article for the most prominent of such cases. Also, you commented that "many criticisms regarding studies which supports homosexuality is genetical have been removed earlier". Actually, I removed the 'criticisms' subheading specific to twin studies because the sources had nothing to do with gay twin studies nor the criticisms of them. I am going to propose a brief statement of the criticisms directly into this section because it is brief. The main criticism was that the samples were non-representative, and recent twin studies have used twins from population sample twin registries, which have found a concordance rate of 24% which is the best available and very likely the 'true' rate of concordance. Through twin studies, and genome wide studies, it's conclusively shown that there is a genetic basis but that other factors are at play. Criticisms of twin studies do not disprove that there is a genetic link. Sxologist (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, the source it is from is as good as they come on this topic, per WP:RS, and it should stay. Crossroads -talk- 22:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
As well as the quasi-experiment, I would say natural experiments could be included... e.g. congenital adrenal hyperplasia and it's effect on androgen receptivity in women has provided more evidence that androgens effect sexual orientation. According to this, "13 published studies have revealed that 20% to 50% of females who have congenital adrenal hyperplasia will identify as lesbian or bisexual in adulthood" (it's probably covered in Bailey). A lot of the new research and publications are interesting since they comment on peoples brains having different receptivity/uptake of androgen... meaning two people can be exposed to different amounts of androgen and have similarly 'masculinized outcomes', and inversely, two people can be exposed to different amounts of androgen and have the same masculinized outcome. McFadden covers this in this article which is a recommended read. It's paywalled but I'd recommend using a site which must not be named. Levay had similar thoughts. Anyway I'll try to focus on doing one thing at a time - but food for thought and it's pretty easy to refer to this natural experiment since it's been covered so much. Sxologist (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Sxologist: That was a meta analysis, I agreed. But the conclusion of this analysis is based on only 7 people, the sample was totally limited. Anyone will call it a sample biased analysis. Thats why the analysis was also criticized by the author of analysis, himself. Have you any reference of other study where more than 7 people showed such sexual orientation? If not, then let this content remove.Sorghum 03:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@প্রলয়স্রোত: No, it does not need to be removed. John Money's failure to reassign infant boys into girls is a very famous part in the history of the view that sexual orientation is a learned social construct. Where exactly did the researchers say it was a small sample so it wasn't valid? They said "rejecting these findings because of their small sample size would be a mistake, even though a larger sample would obviously be desirable. First, the findings comprise the closest test of nature versus nurture with respect to sexual orientation, and right now they are all we have. Second, the seven cases have remarkably similar outcomes with respect to sexual orientation. There is no good reason to suspect that this would change if additional cases similar to these were added. Because of the limited sample size, however, the data provide much stronger support for the importance of nature than they do for the lack of importance of nurture". Did you actually read the full statement? If you're going to recommend edits, you better provide some good evidence to do so without cherry picking a small methodological flaw. A quasi-experiment is a pretty good starting point from which scientists can infer answers from. I will remind you, these boys were also put on estrogen (which I am going to edit into the text), and many were castrated at birth. I will also include reference to the aforementioned points. But to reject such a drastic intervention as "not a big enough sample" is odd. You are not the arbiter of what get's put into a wikipedia article. Wikipedia is to summarize the findings of experts. Sxologist (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Twin studies / theories of cause

Probably best to update the twins studies to the meta-analysis in Bailey's 2016 review rather than primary sources. I don't really think the 'criticisms' needs its own heading (just look at the citations for it, good lord). It's not about it being a random sample and its not about MZ concordance rates, but about (a) the difference in MZ and DZ probandwise concordance rates, and (b) the statistical model of genetic and environmental influence – and as Bailey points out, the only plausible model from these together is the multifactorial threshold model. Sxologist (talk) 10:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the structure of this article in general. Should everything be under one giant 'empirical studies' section or separated under heading type 1? I am also surprised there is no section dedicated to hormones given the substantial volume of evidence related to androgen uptake shown through digit ratio and ear structure. Sxologist (talk) 10:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Additionally, I'm not sure having a section titled "Empirical studies" is right? Sxologist (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Regarding this? Yes, criticisms should be included. Both here and at the Environment and sexual orientation article.
I'll think on the headings. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Agree, I just don't think it warrants a subheading because it can be mentioned very easily in the middle of the history of events. I.e. research began with early self-selecting studies, the criticisms came, and then more recent twin studies relied on the random contacting of people in population twin registries. Bailey 2016 is the most comprehensive meta analysis and the median of .24 concordance is the best available and as close to the true rate as anyone can get (thus far). Sxologist (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the headings, one thing I find odd is on mobile a lot of the actual ~interesting content~ sits under empirical studies, but it’s long and drawn out. I feel like it could just be split according to genes, hormones, FBOE, physiology etc? My eyes just go to ‘biological theories as a cause’ and I’m left unimpressed. I know it means more sections, but many of these could be more encyclopaedic in nature. The current genetic subsection, for example, is rather long winded and at times redundant.
There also needs to be some thought about the ‘biological theories’ section. First, what actually counts? For example, the maternal immune response hypothesis (FBOE) is really it’s own theory of a distinct cause. But other things could also be interpreted as a ‘biological theory for the cause’ that tie into evolutionary biology, like genes causing increased fecundity in women, and causing androphilia in men? This section could technically grow to be quite sizeable. I’m sure that’s not a bad thing, though.
I also don’t know if the ‘early fixation hypothesis’ is the correct title given for that first paragraph. It seems more like brain arrangement hypothesis. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t early fixation more of the Oedipal/Freudian explanation of early psychoanalysts? I’ve never heard that phrase in a biological context. Sxologist (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Regarding "early fixation", I changed that terminology with this edit. It seems like the maternal immune hypothesis is an aspect of that; I wouldn't say off the top of my head that that's a distinct theory, but if the sources do treat it that way, then okay. With splitting or rearranging the "empirical studies" section, I'd have to think about that. If you have a specific proposal, that may help. Maybe the section at the bottom about anatomy should be combined with that as well in some way. However, I don't think discussion of evolution should be combined with theories about development in the individual; this is because of the difference between proximate and ultimate causes, as explained at Tinbergen's four questions. Crossroads -talk- 03:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
That seems pretty good. That way sub headings could be incorporated under it to briefly describe a few related hypotheses, e.g. Maternal Immune Response for some men (FBOE), and androgen receptivity/uptake in others which all relate to brain arrangement or wiring (I am just brainstorming here). I've recently read a lot of responses to Breedlove 2017 in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, and they were really fascinating since brain arrangement with relation to androgen could be manifesting itself in so many different ways. LeVays was brief and good. McFaddens explanation of androgen uptake (and hyper-masculinzation producing a monotonic effect), rather than simple under/over exposure, was perhaps the most interesting. I was surprised to see biologists are finally taking seriously the research out of US/Canada/Sweden with relation to sexual orientation and facial structure. Especially after a longitudinal research was published showing masculinization/feminization of face is highly influenced by androgens. There's probably also room to mention the possibility of different typologies of gay men down this line of reasoning, the fact that some researchers like Bailey think that while there may be multiple prenatal influences, that ultimately they may come through one single final pathway of sexual orientation (i.e. no different typologies, only androphilic or bisexual brain formation).
With regards to structure, it's hard to picture things another way when they've been set in that format for so long. My general feeling is that it should be easy for users to access certain parts, and given most traffic probably comes from mobile - shorter sections with descriptive H1 titles are useful. The easiest path would probably be to switch a lot of the subheading's into H1 headings... i.e. genes, epigenetics, birth order, fertility and heritability studies, brain structure, physiological differences, gender nonconformity, quasi-experiments (boys reassigned female) and animal research (in no particular order here). Maybe this is a lot of headings, but IMO it makes more sense given how far one has to scroll through the genes section (including that table) to get down to all the rest (on mobile). Many people would probably dry up reading all those gene studies, since it's stated quite early on how much of a role genes play. If it was me, I'd want to move on to other explanations by then and scroll to the next section, but on mobile you're not sure whats coming next. The theories could still remain in place below these areas to explain how all those things interlink. I might be way off base here, and I don't think it should be changed in a rush. Maybe there's a better way, but I get the feeling that since each area of research is quite substantial it would be good to have separate headings. We can take our time. Sxologist (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Agreed that the brain development subsection needs expansion, and the sources you mention here could be used for that. As for the headings, lets all think about that for a while. I might have to look at WP:MOS to see how much of a role mobile appearance plays in heading layout. Crossroads -talk- 22:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of a lot of headings (subheadings or otherwise), and especially if the headings only contain a little bit of material (see MOS:Paragraphs). The reason I'm not keen on extra subheadings is because, like I've noted times before on Wikipedia, it can make Wikipedia articles look substantially longer than they are from the table of contents. And this can make the article difficult, or more difficult, to navigate through. To combat clutter in the table of contents, Template:TOC Template:TOC limit is sometimes used. But I'd prefer to just not add excessive subheadings.
As for naming the headings, and the article setup, we could work that out in a sandbox by proposing one or more examples. It's easier to get a better idea of what we mean and agree on in that way. The visual is helpful like that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Just regarding brain arrangement theories. This kind of splits into three main subcategories (as far as I am aware). The first is neurohormonal theory, linked to the exposure of androgens, or the uptake/sensitivity to them along certain regions of the brain. Then it splits into two different maternal immune response hypotheses. The first is the anti-male antibodies as demonstrated by the FBO effect. The second is a maternal immune response unrelated to male antigens, and Blanchard has (so far cautiously) implicated it in first born gay sons and even lesbians. Blanchard found that mothers with first born gay sons and lesbians had less successive children, perhaps indicating that this type of antibody effects sex differentiation processes, but unlike FBO effect, it is detrimental to the viability of future fetuses (I think it was even stronger in mothers with lesbian daughters). He did leave a comment in a journal recently that he has another paper with data coming out shortly. Since all of these three brain arrangement theories would implicate atypical sex-differentiation processes, there can be homosexuals with physiological outcomes that look attributable to neurohormonal theory but may be truly attributable to antibodies. For example, Marc Breedlove always seems to regurgitate his masculinized digit ratios for lesbians, but ignores Richard A. Lippa's digit ratio study (one of the largest) with a sample of N=2,000+ which found gay men had feminized digit ratios, and lesbians had no differences with straight women. Theres another paper in the mid-2000's with similar findings. I think the vast majority show lesbians having masculinized ratios (at least butch ones) but they are smaller than Lippa's. It gets quite complex. This may be related to a variety of different cause typologies as LeVay points out, where some are related to androgen receptivity and a third is related to antibodies – and then how much of this also implicates gene for androgen receptivity? Unfortunately the media and LGBTQ activist/groups appear to have moved largely back to a social constructionist view, for example, Rebecca Jordan-Young is frequently quoted in NYTimes articles bashing any study that implicates biology and sexual orientation, because that would mean she had to cede ground on sex differences. I guess they also don't want there to be a biological implication because it could mean prevention of sexual orientation? Anyway, J. Michael Bailey doesn't even care for physiological markers because behavior that emerges with no encouragement, and despite opposition, is the "sine qua non of innateness". In his view gender nonconforming children fare the "poster child for biological influences on gender and sexuality, and this is true whether or not we measure a single biological marker". These perspectives are outlined in a variety of papers but if I propose some edits I'd want to refer to all of the evidence (excluding the social constructionists argument, which I might briefly cover in environment/sexual orientation?). Let me know if I am missing something. Sxologist (talk)

Okay. I'd encourage you to keep working at it until you have written what you feel is a well-rounded overview, and then you can add it to the article or propose it here first; discussion and tweaks can then follow either way. I don't think we need to discuss social constructionism in this article. That is in fact discussed at Sexual orientation, but I need to work on that section.
Regarding "the media and LGBTQ activist/groups appear to have moved largely back to a social constructionist view", I don't think I would go quite that far, but it does seem to me there has been a shift in this regard over the last several years. And we do definitely hear some pro-LGBT people nevertheless (and foolishly, in my view) endorsing social learning or constructionism, whereas a few years before that was almost always associated with the religious right. The idea has long existed in some parts of academia, though, but scientific research has since moved beyond that. Crossroads -talk- 03:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, re: social constructionism, you may have already read it, but J. Michael Bailey has a great chapter on this topic in The Man Who Would Be Queen, titled “is homosexuality a modern invention?”. The entire book is available on researchgate. It’s an amusing critique of the social constructivism view. Sxologist (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I've read the book. Regarding criticism of social constructionism, you may find these sources interesting and/or useful.[1][2] Bailey et al. cited both of these among others in their 2016 review. There may also be other sources along those lines which I am not familiar with. Crossroads -talk- 04:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Norton, Rictor (2016). Myth of the Modern Homosexual. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 9781474286923. The author has made adapted and expanded portions of this book available online as A Critique of Social Constructionism and Postmodern Queer Theory.
  2. ^ Boswell, John (1989). "Revolutions, Universals, and Sexual Categories" (PDF). In Duberman, Martin Bauml; Vicinus, Martha; Chauncey, Jr., George (eds.). Hidden From History: Reclaiming the Gay and Lesbian Past. Penguin Books. pp. 17–36.

Considerations

I have raised questions over some of the pages in the past, but I am trying to get some specificity here. Under Biological influences, there are pages for

  • Neuroscientific
  • Epigenetic
  • Birth order
  • Prenatal environment (which links to an article titled prenatal hormones and sexual orientation???)

But, prenatal environment can obviously include immunological responses rather than just "prenatal hormones" as is implied by the actual article title. It's starting to look more and more like the majority of male homosexuality may be the result of immunological responses, since the antibody found in the fratenral birth order effect was more present in mothers of first born gay sons who had no older brothers (perhaps a thinner placenta leads to the maternal response having more power in such a first born). I've seen a lot of research out of Sweden indicating that first born sons are much more likely to pursue fields like engineering and politics, while later born sons are more likely to pursue art school and journalism (gay or straight)... and this often chalked up to 'parental investment of time' into first borns by sociologists... but really, it's likely that some portion of mens interest in masculine/feminine behaviors may also be the result of interplay between immunological responses and development. If all pregnant women began taking a drug which shielded developing fetuses from NLGN4Y Y-linked antibodies (in the hope of preventing a gay son), you'd likely start to see more 'feminine' traits in men disappear, and men on average would begin to skew much more to masculine/aggressive traits/behaviors. For many reasons, such a society would probably be hampered on creativity, trust, and maybe even fertility (given many heterosexual women opt for some level of femininity in men). I only put such theories here, which are supported by many scientists, as to explain how immune responses apply in a much larger way than was previously thought. This also means that FBOE very likely does apply to more than just gay men with older brothers (as is implied by boegart). Regions like Latin-America where historical birth rates were around 7 in the 1970's have a lot more homosexuality than regions like Scandinavia where birth rates sat at about 2 for the past 50 years, therefore immunological responses could explain the vast majority of gay men in such cultures... the 15-29% calculations apply to the mostly white/western datasets Blanchard had access to.

In addition, other immune responses (potentially involving blood groups) may have some explanation for other homosexuals and even lesbians (as i've mentioned before). My main question is to whether or not prenatal hormones is the correct title, or, if there needs to be a separate article for prenatal maternal immune responses?? I don't like how there are so many articles separated in general, but I feel simply having 'prenatal environment' (as it is titled under the sexual orientation infobox/sidebar) linking to a page specifically about prenatal hormones seems a little outdated/inaccurate.

I know it's annoying to have to restructure and reorganize. A side note and as and example, I've pointed out previously on this talk page, that opening with 'genes' is a little lackluster given genes have been a very disappointing field of investigation with regards to sexuality. I'd say it should be shifted below hormones or prenatal development... or maybe the article should begin with the basics of fetal development and sex-differentiation. As soon as you can grasp the fact that brain masculinization as a result of sex hormones begins at 8 weeks, it's rather easy for people to grasp how other genetic/hormonal/immunological components all play a role in that process and may effect whether one is androphilic, gynephilic or somewhere in between. Sxologist (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I edited the sidebar to match the article title. Otherwise, as you know, we are bound by the reliable secondary sources, which means we aren't on the cutting edge of the science (and scientists can't always tell in the midst of it all which avenues will pan out and which will be dead ends). With regard to 'prenatal maternal immune responses', as far as I know, the sources overwhelmingly talk about that in context of the FBOE, so I don't see the need for renaming or spinning out anything at this time. With regard to mentioning genes first, I believe we do this because the sources do, and they likely do it because ultimately, the very first thing someone starts out as is their genome, basically, with prenatal environmental effects happening after that. Yes, there is overlap between the different articles on the causes of sexual orientation. We'll chip away at improvements and discuss specifics as we go. Crossroads -talk- 04:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, and no worries. I still think that hormones should come first. It comes first in the Bailey et al. 2016 review, and in my time reading a lot of Blanchard papers recently, he frequently makes an opening statement similar to the one in this paper (which was coauthored by a lot of researchers): "As noted by Blanchard (2008), the maternal immune hypothesis does not challenge the long-standing theory that sexual orientation is primarily influenced via prenatal sex hormone exposure", so I think that does underscore that neuroendrocrine/hormonal theory has and will continue to be the most relevant. In addition, Bogaert's 2018 review puts prenatal hormones before genetics. Sxologist (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Hi Flyer, I see what you mean. I only ordered it in that fashion because of the Bailey review, and since it sort of relates to hormonal exposure/brain masculinization (but I guess t lacks direct evidence of the cause) But we can change that. I’ll do a proposal soon. Sxologist (talk) 05:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment; the problem being that for example, there is a causes of trans sexuality article, but there is no central place for causes of sexual orientation in total, so it kind of lacks cohesion. But we can just move it down. Sxologist (talk) 05:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Trimming Biological differences

The 'Biological differences ...' section includes biomedical information cited to non-MEDRS sources. Any objections to a heavy trim? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

While badly cited, secondary sources cover quite a number of those things. Especially the Bailey et al. review from 2016 and LeVay's book. I would prefer using those and similar sources and cite those as replacements in most cases. Perhaps it could be tagged for now. Crossroads -talk- 22:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yzhyjysm.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dsackett253. Peer reviewers: Sophiaschoen, Krsmith09.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gabbyyvaldezz33. Peer reviewers: Lyz.Merola.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jackmccullar. Peer reviewers: Avacholakian.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Reverts to lead

What are the reasons for revert of my edits User:Enlightenedstranger0 ? Saying "I oppose" is not a good reason to ignore the largest study regarding homosexuality to date published in Science. Please provide sufficient reasons for your opposition, otherwise it seems like just biased opinion and I will introduce edits again. Lpsspp (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

They reverted material very similar to what I reverted. Per WP:ONUS, you should not reintroduce this material (edit warring) without consensus for it.
The problem with this edit is that you remove material cited to academic literature reviews to replace it with material about a single study. That is not how Wikipedia works. See WP:PSTS. WP:MEDRS elaborates more on the relevant principles in a medical context, and does a good job of explaining why secondary sources are so important. The evidence for biological influence on sexual orientation comes from many lines of evidence, and is not merely related to studies of genetics, nor can it be rebutted by one such study. You should read this article. Reviews since then say basically the same things. Crossroads -talk- 03:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
But this new material does not rebut previous studies. It just elaborates on them and explains in what amount genetic factors drive homosexuality(8 to 25% of variance in population and < 1% in person). It didn't conclude that genetic factors don't play role at all. It just set the error bars(previous studies gave the same results, give or take and I'm surprised it's not mentioned tbh). Moreover environmental factors mentioned in the study are not necessarily sociocultural ones(but those are mentioned in the study as well as something that should definitely be considered) but it could also be enviroment of the womb for example. And third, it's the largest study to date and it's really strange to ignore it but reference smaller studies with methodological problems(it's mentioned there as well), specifically: all studies before that suffered from a small sample size.As a conclusion I don't see why you are saying that that the new study rebuts something, it just clarify and says that both genetic AND enviromental factors play role. Lpsspp (talk) 13:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Moreover APA states that "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." which is in direct conflict with what is put on the wiki page. There are also recent studies that show that sexual orientation might be seriously influenced by social factors(what people were told in this specific case). Lpsspp (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
User:Crossroads my proposal is to write that there is no consensus of what exactly influences SSB and that evidence for genetic and environmental factors are considered. The statement that "Hypotheses for the impact of the post-natal social environment on sexual orientation, however, are weak, especially for males." is just bias toward specific opinion as other academic paper including meta analysis of APA says the opposite. Lpsspp (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Reviews since then say basically the same things. - No. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
You should read this article. Reviews since then say basically the same things. By the way I read that review and what you said is just not true. That's fact confirmed by APA. I don't understand why you're trying to deceive people. Waiting for your reply. Lpsspp (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
That is what the review says: No causal theory of sexual orientation has yet gained widespread support. The most scientifically plausible causal hypotheses are difficult to test. However, there is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial causes of sexual orientation than social causes. This evidence includes the cross-culturally robust finding that adult homosexuality is strongly related to childhood gender nonconformity; moderate genetic influences demonstrated in well-sampled twin studies; the cross-culturally robust fraternal-birth-order effect on male sexual orientation; and the finding that when infant boys are surgically and socially “changed” into girls, their eventual sexual orientation is unchanged (i.e., they remain sexually attracted to females). In contrast, evidence for the most commonly hypothesized social causes of homosexuality—sexual recruitment by homosexual adults, patterns of disordered parenting, or the influence of homosexual parents—is generally weak in magnitude and distorted by numerous confounding factors....The most common meaningful controversy across time and place has concerned the extent to which homosexuality is socially influenced and, more specifically, whether or not it spreads as a result of contagion and social tolerance. There is no good evidence that either increases the rate of homosexual orientation, although tolerance may facilitate behavioral expression of homosexual desire. (Emphasis added.)
Your quote from the American Psychological Association contradicts none of this and in fact aligns with what the review says about "no specific causal theory". (It's also not a "meta-analysis".) APA is right that there is no consensus about the "exact reasons", but there is strong evidence favoring the biological class of explanations and only weak and confounded evidence regarding the socially-learned class. The single sociological study you link concludes by saying, We should stress that present findings do not support the contention that sexual orientation (the underlying compass that directs our sexual/romantic feelings) can be changed. Rather we show that how people understand and label their experiences can influenced by exposure to certain theories of sexual orientation, which arguably more accurately reflect their underlying feelings. So no, they don't believe that social influence actually changes people's underlying actual sexual orientation.
There is no good reason to remove any review article, and while that genetic study is an important scientific contribution, it is but one of many individual studies on genetic data. It is not WP:DUE to emphasize it so heavily in the WP:LEAD. Crossroads -talk- 05:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
First of all you are trying to twist what is said at APA site. What they say is: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.. (Emphasis added). They specifically state that nature AND nurture play role. Second, why at do you think that this one review should be considered as the source of last truth? Once again I gave you several links that contradict what you say and you continue to state that they should be discarded. Why is it so? It is the largest study so far, peer reviewed and accepted too one of the most famous and recognized science magazines. What authority do you have to say that it is not true? And yes, APA did meta-analysis and article on there site is the result of it. Your statement that "but there is strong evidence favoring the biological class of explanations and only weak and confounded evidence regarding the socially-learned class." is just not true as the largest study to date states and many other studies before that. All you have is one review which you try to make a single source of truth. Nobody has found a "gay gene" and never will as the study I presented shows. What kind of "biological class of explanations" is that exactly that explain it all? Even in your review they say that all the studies before struggle from methodological difficulties and now at last we have one with huge sample size and you want to discard it. Moreover, no previous studies have shown 100% concordance when studying identical twins which itself suggests that nurture plays huge role(75% at least specifically). The best what was shown is 52% concordance and it was poorly made, suffered from methodological difficulties and no other study ever shown anything similar. "So no, they don't believe that social influence actually changes people's underlying actual sexual orientation." - don't twist what they say, my friend. They didn't say that it is not nurture, they said that it which arguably more accurately reflect their underlying feelings.. You have to stress arguably here. If you are exposed to certain traditions in childhood it could be very hard to change your behavior but that doesn't mean those traditions are result of genetics. That's obvious. And also they included word arguably there which says that it is just their opinion at best. I can give you another hypothesis. Besides the topic is very sensitive and they might just be politically correct. And by the way, there are plenty of examples when people changed their sexual orientation with one of the most famous examples is Michael_Glatze. "There is no good reason to remove any review article," - ok, let's not remove it. Let's rephrase and present all of the opinions including APA's. Currently the article is heavily biased toward one specific opinion which is obviously not consensus and not representative. "it is but one of many individual studies on genetic data. " - once again it's not "one of many" it's the largest study to date with the sample size at lest 100 times more than any other. You can not just discard it. Currently WP:DUE is being violated by presenting review you mentioned before like it is the consensus but it is not. My statement is that currently the wiki article is heavily biased and doesn't include diversity of opinions of scientists and violates WP:DUE. Environmental factors play huge role in forming of homosexual behavior as shown by many peer reviewed papers including largest study to date(sample size at least 100 times more than any previous one) and it is just unfair and misleading to reject it. What we should do is to change the phrasing of what is written on the page to include diversity of opinions until scientific community reach the consensus. Lpsspp (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
None of the sources that you have presented contradict the sources we have that scientists favor biological theories. The APA mentions "hormonal, developmental" alongside genetic before mentioning socio-cultural factors, and a lot of the confusion here seems to stem from the fact that there are many routes of explanation that are biological but non-genetic. Such things can also sometimes be referred to as "nurture" or "environmental" in contrast to genetics, but they are still biological. The hypothesized cause of the fraternal birth order effect illustrates this. Almost all, if not all, the ongoing research on the causes of one's actual, psychological sexual orientation focuses on biological routes of causation. While it is true that it is not definitely known that it is 100% biological, scientists do favor this class of explanations. Pointing to Michael Glatze, who became a conservative Christian, doesn't support your case. There is no good evidence that people who claim to be ex-gay have been able to change their sexual orientation, and conversion therapy does not work. Crossroads -talk- 15:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
None of the sources that you have presented contradict the sources we have that scientists favor biological theories That is just not true. APA explicitly states that " 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 mentions "hormonal, developmental" alongside genetic before mentioning socio-cultural factors - ahhhh, and so what. Why did you decide that order there plays any role? Is it stated somewhere? Actually they state completely the opposite: no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Stop twisting what they say please. to stem from the fact that there are many routes of explanation that are biological but non-genetic - APA explicitly state that sociocultural factors play role as well. Stop cherry-picking. Such things can also sometimes be referred to as "nurture" or "environmental" in contrast to genetics, but they are still biological - that is just not true. Sociocultural factors are not biological, nurture is not biological, that's complete nonsense. Collins dictionary defines norture as "Nurture is care that is given to someone while they are growing and developing.". Cambrige dictionary defines it as "the way in which children are treated as they are growing, especially as compared with the characteristics they are born with". So clearly not "biological". "The hypothesized cause of the fraternal birth order effect illustrates this" - fraternal birth effect is not nurture. It's clear as a day. And it's not proven. "Almost all, if not all, the ongoing research on the causes of one's actual, psychological sexual orientation focuses on biological routes of causation" - that is not true. The paper(the largest study todate with two orders of magnitude more sample size than any other) I presented to you specifically states that sociocultural factors should be considered.I, once again, don't understand why you are trying to reject it, it is the most accurate study to date we have. It seems like a huge bias from you. While it is true that it is not definitely known that it is 100% biological, scientists do favor this class of explanations - you keep repeating this but it's not true. APA states this explicitly and you keep ignoring it. Do you have any related education to rebut what they say? ointing to Michael Glatze, who became a conservative Christian, doesn't support your case - it clearly supports the case that people cane change their sexuality. It doesn't matter how he did it and who he became. The fact is he changed his sexual behavior from being gay to being straight. Your personal bias towards Christianity is not relatable here. There is no good evidence that people who claim to be ex-gay have been able to change their sexual orientation, and conversion therapy does not work - I didn't say anything about conversion therapy and how exactly he did that. I just said that he changed his sexuality. Are you trying to say that you don't believe him and he is still gay? Please elaborate on that because your point here is unclear. And speaking of your statement that it "doesn't work" - it is not true once again. Actually APA states that There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation. not that it doesn't work. And Although there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation, some individuals modified their sexual orientation identity (i.e., group membership and affiliation), behavior, and values (Nicolosi, Byrd, & Potts, 2000). They did so in a variety of ways and with varied and unpredictable outcomes, some of which were temporary (Beckstead & Morrow, 2004; Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002). Again they never stated that it didn't work and actually say that some changed their sexual behavior. Also please answer why you suggest that the paper you're referring to should be the single source of truth where other sources suggest different things? Once again: APA statement clearly says that sociocultural environment considered as one of the factors. The paper I provided states that sociocultural environment should definitely be considered in future studies. This study for example says that The etiology of human same-sex romantic attraction is generally framed in terms of (1) social influences, (2) genetic influences, or (3) hormonal influences. In this article, we show that adolescent males who are opposite-sex twins are twice as likely as expected to report same-sex attraction; and that the pattern of concordance (similarity across pairs) of same-sex preference for sibling pairs does not suggest genetic influence independent of social context. Our data falsify the hormone transfer hypothesis by isolating a single condition that eliminates the opposite-sex twin effect we observe-the presence of an older same-sex sibling. We also consider and reject a speculative evolutionary theory that rests on observing birth-order effects on same-sex orientation. In contrast, our results support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences.. This study says Univariate analyses showed that familial factors were important for all traits, but were less successful in distinguishing genetic from shared environmental influences.. So I completely don't get why you're saying that environmental factors play any role here. Virtualy every study you take states that genes play some role but environmental(physical or sociocultural) play it as well. Lpsspp (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Actually, the very same Lisa Diamond who is co-autor of the article you are referring to seems to has changed her mind and says now that "born this way" argument is not scientifically accurate and that sexuality can change. Lpsspp (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, I propose you don't expend your energy on this rathe-ripe editor, who came here citing the little-known essay Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary and speaks of the possibility of sexual orientation change efforts working. If the editor wants to argue for sexual orientation change efforts/conversion therapy, they know where to find those articles and their talk pages. If the editor wants to continue to argue that we should remove the well-supported "Hypotheses for the impact of the post-natal social environment on sexual orientation, however, are weak, especially for males.", I don't doubt that they also know where to find WP:DR. There's nothing to argue here. The evidence is much stronger for biological causes, including prenatal environment. Scientists haven't dismissed the role of non-biological factors, but neither have they given them as much weight as they've given biological factors. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Enlightenedstranger0 I suggest you read what other people write before you try to criticize them. Because your statements are full of fallacies and gross propaganda-like twisting of my words. the little-known essay Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary - what is exactly wrong with that page, except that you don't like it because it doesn't serve your purposes? {{and speaks of the possibility of sexual orientation change efforts working.}} - I never made any statement of conversion therapy working or not. All I did was citing APA which is respectful psychological organization which says that "There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation". It is a scientific fact. If this fact doesn't fit into your picture of the world it's entirely your problem not the problem of the facts. If you have any arguments against what is said at APA site you should write them and express your concerns involving scientific facts. You have to learn how to convey a conversation without lying. If the editor wants to continue to argue that we should remove the well-supported "Hypotheses for the impact of the post-natal social environment on sexual orientation, however, are weak, especially for males.", - first of all, we should rephrase it yes. Second of all once again as APA and other scientific papers state this hypothesis is not as "well-supported" as you wish to portray that. The only proof for that is paper which co-autor Lisa Diamond later gave speech and explicitly said that "born this way argument is not scientific". Once again if the facts contradict your worldview it's entirely your problem. There's nothing to argue here. The evidence is much stronger for biological causes, including prenatal environment - that is just false. The largest study suggests that environment plays huge role. Do you have education required to asses which scientific paper is correct and which is not? Scientists haven't dismissed the role of non-biological factors, but neither have they given them as much weight as they've given biological factors. - that is once again pure lying in favor of your world view. You have to read the latest papers on the topic and talk Lisa Diamond(lesbian by the way) gave on TED. Conclusion: please stop twisting my words and start presenting proofs of what you say instead of pure statements. You are not at a rally here. Lpsspp (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I suggested to Crossroads not to expend energy rebutting you. I don't want to expend energy doing so either. I realize you've been eager to talk with (to) me, but I'm not going to bite in the way you want me to. Obviously, by saying you're "a rathe-ripe editor, who came here citing the little-known essay Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary", I'm saying you're awfully familiar with Wikipedia for someone with as few edits as you have. I don't know what you think you know about my education, but whatever you think you know is a product of your imagination and not relevant to this discussion. Personal attacks such as "You have to learn how to convey a conversation without lying" and "Do you have education required to asses which scientific paper is correct and which is not?" won't help you. I will say I studied abroad before returning to the place I was raised. Then left again. Blah, blah, bah. And by the way, I'm sure you meant "assess" and not "asses."
But enough about me. No one here has twisted your words. You did argue for the possibility of sexual orientation change efforts working. They don't work. You've also misrepresented Diamond here. You appear to be under the impression that Crossroads and I are arguing for a gay gene or that sexual orientation is mostly due to genetics. We aren't. We're saying, like the review does, that there's much more evidence for biological causes. Non-biological causes don't appear to have no role, but the research so far indicates that they do not have a big role, especially when males are considered. We know scientists say "complex roles" in terms of biological and non-biological impacts on sexual orientation. This article says it in the first sentence paragraph. So you added information that is already there and not required. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
You also appear to be neglecting other biological factors, such as prenatal environment and hormones. The study you're so happy to use focuses on genes. It is not a review of the literature on the causes of sexual orientation. According to WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:DUE, it should not be made a priority, used to trump a literature review, or given the same standing as a literature review. Certainly not when the literature review is only a few years old and regards a landscape that moves at a snail's pace. The APA statement is a much older statement, doesn't support what you argue here, and they've made other statements on the research since then. It also is not a review. WP:MEDORG says that the reliability of statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies "ranges from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature." You added, "Other possible factors proposed by authors included sociocultural environment." How does the underlying literature support sociocultural environment for the causes of sexual orientation as much as it supports biological causes? What is this "sociocultural environment" you're referring to? Crossroads may want to revisit this discussion and look at any others that have been had about this genes subject in the past. Lazy-restless seems to have been quite the character. You're similar to Lazy-restless, but not an exact match. I'm going to add an edit warring template to your talk page since you've reverted two editors and are trying to shoehorn your "it's social just as much as biological" misguided view into the article. I'll leave the next move after that up to Crossroads. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
but I'm not going to bite in the way you want me to - you can think whatever you want. The fact is not everything you think is true. I'm saying you're awfully familiar with Wikipedia for someone with as few edits as you have - is it good or bad? Why would you mention that at all? I don't know what you think you know about my education, but whatever you think you know is a product of your imagination and not relevant to this discussion - what I'm saying is that not having relevant education merely means that you can not properly assess information presented in those articles. That is it. And by the way, I'm sure you meant "assess" and not "asses." - oh, yes, you're completely right here. I'm happy that you can distinguish those two. You did argue for the possibility of sexual orientation change efforts working - that is not true. I argued that there are people who were homosexual and then became straight. How exactly they did it is a subject for a separate study obviously. But you can not deny that such people do exist. They don't work. - that statement is a lying. There are no scientific evidence that can conclude if they work or not. You've also misrepresented Diamond here. - oh, that's obviously not true. I merely cited what she said. You can go and check yourself. Non-biological causes don't appear to have no role, but the research so far indicates that they do not have a big role, especially when males are considered. - well, APA states the opposite. As other studies do as well. We know scientists say "complex roles" in terms of biological and non-biological impacts on sexual orientation. This article says it in the first sentence paragraph. So you added information that is already there and not required. - this article misrepresents the diversity of opinions on the topic and is biased towards one specific based on one review which is chosen to be "the gold standard" for some reason. The reason for that is unknown. You also appear to be neglecting other biological factors, such as prenatal environment and hormones - that is, once again not true, if you read what I wrote carefully you'll notice that environmental factors include hormones and other biological factors along with sociocultural ones. landscape that moves at a snail's pace - quite a controversial statement. The APA statement is a much older statement, doesn't support what you argue here - and what do you think I argue? I only argue that environmental factors including sociocultural ones play role in sexual orientation. And APA's statement perfectly supports that. and they've made other statements on the research since then. - like what? Do you have a link to those "other statements"? What is this "sociocultural environment" you're referring to? - sociocultural factors may be shared or individual. Shared factors are such things as political environment, cultural environment and so on. Individual factors are such things as illnesses people were exposed to, individual sexual experience, bullying, sexual abuse(homosexual people are more likely to have had sexual abuse experience in childhood for example). You can add whatever you want it's up to you. Lpsspp (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
You know why it matters if you're awfully familiar with Wikipedia with only a few edits to your name. But feign ignorance. What you're doing by questioning my and Crossroads's education is trying to discredit our involvement with the article and comments. You're trying to prop yourself up as being more educated, in general or on this specific topic. You haven't shown that you are more educated. But regardless of who is more educated on the topic, it's irrelevant to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You are defending and supporting sexual orientation change efforts, and you've done it again. Saying that I'm lying after I say they don't work is you defending and supporting those pseudoscientific methods. Denying that you are supporting them adds to the perception that you aren't serious here or you know not of what you speak. It also oversimplifies the research on that topic and strongly-worded statements against the methods. "How exactly they did it is a subject for a separate study obviously."? Obviously, it's the study of sexual orientation change efforts/conversion therapy. It's certainly not called sexual fluidity, so I don't know what name you've imagined for them to justify your support of them. I can and do deny that a person can change their sexual orientation from gay to heterosexual. There's no scientific evidence that Santa Claus (the one parents tell their children about) doesn't exist either. Or definitive scientific evidence, depending on who's debating it, that Bigfoot doesn't exist. If you're going to argue that I'm lying because there is "no scientific evidence that can conclude if they work or not", then why can't someone say you're lying since we apparently can't say one way or the other? I say Bigfoot doesn't exist? That means I'm lying. Sound logic there. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Environmental factors do include hormones, but you haven't focused on that. If you had, you wouldn't have made some of the comments you have, specifically dismissing the fact that researchers give more weighty attention to biological causes than they do to social causes. That doesn't mean they disregard social environment and its interplay. There's nothing "quite controversial" about acknowledging that the study of sexual orientation moves at a snail's pace. Where's all this speedy research? You "only argue that environmental factors including sociocultural ones play role in sexual orientation"? Well, we haven't said otherwise. So that doesn't matter. What matters is your argument that sociocultural factors play as big a role as biological factors. You didn't even say "social factors." You said "sociocultural." Oh, I was so hoping you would say "parenting." I guess you know to avoid that trap, huh? As for your other arguments, I would say you're lying, but that would be uncivil. Still, whatever you were hoping to accomplish here with your questionable science beliefs and rudeness, you've failed miserably. Don't expect further replies from me. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Enlightenedstranger0, please do not hesitate to revert material that does not improve the article and is being forced in without consensus. And thanks for the replies. I have other issues on Wikipedia that consume my limited time, so it helps.
Appealing to Lisa Diamond supports our case, not Lpsspp's. She has been researching sexual fluidity since at least 2008, yet she co-authored the 2016 review that, as I quoted above, shows that evidence for social causes is weak, and especially for males. Her research in no way contradicts that - fluidity for how some experience attraction does not mean that social causes made them that way.
And that genetic study that keeps being touted? Other researchers have criticized it for poorly measuring what it purported to. Quoting: The overly simplistic “ever or never” behavioral phenotype used by Ganna et al. led to widespread public confusion about the meaning of their study. Most accounts of the research, both in the scientific and mass media, focused on the research’s implications for “gay genes,” “sources of same-sex attraction,” and “causes of homosexuality,” even though the study did not in fact investigate attraction or sexual orientation. This is a perfect example of why we don't rely on single studies, even with a large sample size.
The bottom line is that no sources of equivalent or greater quality have been shown that contradict that evidence for social causes are weak. This isn't to say it's impossible - it hasn't been ruled out entirely - but that is where the scientific community is at. We do go by review articles and equally authoritative sources here per WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS. Crossroads -talk- 05:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Okay, Crossroads. Thank you for the time you have to spare. I felt that if I undid Lpsspp's edit and then gave them an edit warring notice, or vice versa, Lpsspp would then slap one on my talk page and also probably claim I was being hypocritical. We can't all undo edits again and again. WP:AN/3 doesn't want the one reporting to also be edit warring, although the admins there do seem to make a kind of exception when one editor is edit warring against two or more editors. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
The bottom line is that no sources of equivalent or greater quality have been shown that contradict that evidence for social causes are weak - it is just false. I presented several sources including APA statement and largest study to date that show that social causes are considered as one of the origins of social behavior. Bottom line here is that you just ignored them all saying that they are not significant which is once again false. Lisa Diamond at her TED talk explicitly stated that "born this way" argument is not scientific anymore and sexual orientation is not fixed and can change during person's life. Appealing ti Dean Hammer is just sheer nonsense - he quit his scientific carrier and became a filmmaker. He is trying to protect his Xq28 gene hypothesis which has never been robustly confirmed(refer to Xq28 "Subsequent studies"). And once again it's not one study. You can find at least three above. Open your eyes. Lpsspp (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
From the beginning, you've appeared so triggered by me. My, I wonder why. Your first edit after returning was to add an edit warring template to my talk page. In between that time, you commented here. Finally, you added one to Crossroads's talk page. Crossroads undid your edits multiple times, but your first action is to add the template to my talk page? Interesting. WP:EW says an edit war occurs "when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." I didn't repeatedly override your contributions. I undid your changes one time. Undoing an editor's edit one time is not edit warring unless a WP:0RR restriction is placed on the article. If it were edit warring, undoing an editor's edit one time would be a serious breach of policy. WP:1RR would never be implemented. That you favor the WP:ONLYREVERT essay doesn't mean there's any such rule to not undo another's edit one time. I undid your changes once and then talked it out on the talk page. So not edit warring. The fact that you hurried to add the template to my talk page is funny because, unbeknownst to you, it reveals a lot. I'd thought about saying, "But Lpsspp might add it spitefully anyway." But I knew how this would sound, and I wanted to see if you'd do it. Thank you for showing me that my deductive powers remain intact. Never truly doubted them. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Homosexuality and sex

Articles on sexual orientation are filled with claims that male homosexuality is linked to "feminization" or "demasculinization"; Why so much insistence on these assumptions? It's almost like they're "proven facts". For example, maternal immunization theoretically affects all fetuses, including those who will be heterosexual in the future, so it is just as possible that antibodies against male antigens are responsible for heterosexuality as it is for homosexuality. Nobody knows how such antibodies interact with such antigens, how cells and molecules react, if the fetus itself does not operate some kind of defense against maternal immunization, but they already assume that male homosexuality is derived from a congenital sexual deficiency. I appeal to you all to treat the hypotheses raised by these studies with the greatest care and neutrality as possible, without inferring (or categorically stating) that homosexuality is originated from sexual defects. It is all very speculative, therefore homosexuals do not deserve to be seen in the academic environment nor for Wikipedia readers as intersex or as people who were not very well sexually differentiated. Grateful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.95.47.193 (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biology_and_sexual_orientation/Archive_4&oldid=1225432265"