Talk:Fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation

Introduction

I wasn't convinced the introduction was a good summarization of the effect, so I wrote one which essentially covers everything important. It is a little long, so perhaps the last paragraph could be trimmed off and moved into overview. I have seen a lot of people dismiss the FBOE as quackery because they aren't aware it only occurs with biological older brothers. I think an introduction which covers the main points as to why it's thought to be a biological mechanism is important. Let me know if we can improve/trim this or if it's adequate in some form. I put it in a sandbox here. Happy for you to duplicate the paragraph in the sandbox, make changes, and then comment here which changes you made and why, or, just leave the comments here. Sxologist (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I made this edit in the sandbox. Actually, I see now you didn't invite me to do that specifically, but I have done that in a past collaboration with another editor. You can of course undo my edit and work on it from there if you want. Basically, I don't think we need to go into detail on how the mechanism works in the lead; that sort of thing is article body content. I also noticed that some of the content there does not exist yet in the article body here; that content should also be added to the body, per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. (Other articles are not always good about following "lead follows body", but they should). Otherwise, it looks good to me. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

That's totally fine – striking it is a good start. I *might* add a small extension on the last sentence about sexual differentiation of brain, and it should be pretty easy to fit in there. Agree on body of text. The body is a bit out of date and needs replacing with secondary sources. I'll wait and see what other editors say. Sxologist (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I have published a version two which is more simple but still captures the antigen associated. Sxologist (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this? I'll leave it to you two. At least for now. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Malicious edits

There's a user going through and changing the gender and numbers related to the study this page covers. 2600:1700:84E9:1510:9565:8ECC:157B:FB49 (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Male Asexual FBOE

There's an equivalent fraternal birth order effect for asexuality.

Biological Markers of Asexuality: Handedness, Birth Order, and Finger Length Ratios in Self-identified Asexual Men and Women Morag A. Yule • Lori A. Brotto • Boris B. Gorzalka

10.1007/s10508-013-0175-0

Could there be a section on this? DotCoder (talk) 07:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It could be mentioned, a better source would be this review here which states:

"There is evidence that mutations in NLGN4X and NLGN4Y are linked to autism spectrum conditions (Jamain et al., 2003; Ross et al., 2015) and such conditions may be elevated in asexual people (e.g., Gilmour et al., 2012). Moreover, there is some evidence that an FBOE occurs in asexual men (Yule et al., 2014). Thus, NLGN4X/Y may affect neurological functioning associated with, broadly, the forming of social connections to others, including sexual/romantic ones" Zenomonoz (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Seminar in Human Sexuality

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 4 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Plantbasederick (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Zy175311460 (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Possibly relevant

A 2023 study criticizing previous findings: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10441532/ "The fraternal birth-order effect as a statistical artefact: convergent evidence from probability calculus, simulated data, and multiverse meta-analysis"

(I am in no position to evaluate the paper. I just Googled it because of a strip in a webcomic...) 47.18.39.208 (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I know the study well. It would be best to wait until it is covered in a secondary academic source. There have been studies published since which appear to continue to support the effect. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Is this an Ad?

This article is a) unusually long and detailed and b) exclusively cites Ray Blanchard and Anthony Bogaert throughout the article. A quick glance over the papers cited shows small sample sizes and similar weak methodological setups. The word "Blanchard" appears 61 times on the page.

Studies questioning the effect are covered in a section "Other Findings" and are immediately dismissed quoting, of course, Blanchard again, using phrases like "Blanchard explains...".

tl;dr the entire article is massively biased in favour of a (likely) questionable hypothesis proposed by a single group of authors that as far as I can tell has not been replicated or backed up by anyone else in the field and should be reconceptualized entirely. 84.60.246.70 (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

No, but it could do with some trimming on the primary sources which I will do when I have free time. There look to be a number of papers from other research groups, although these are quite recent. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Homosexual

@Kaczynskisatva. Your rationale that "gay" should be replaced with "homosexual" wherever possible is misplaced. You cite that it is about homosexual behavior, but that's not true. There are many mentions of homosexuality and homosexual behavior already in the article, but every instance you replaced 'gay' with 'homosexual' on was not on behavior, but as a label for men. The label "homosexual" is no more bisexual-inclusive than gay is, nor is it more trans-inclusive. The only instance you add the word 'homosexuality' is incorrect. If you go to the the source[1], it says "gay and bisexual" five times and not homosexual/homosexuality once. (I only have access to the abstract there, but still) I think you're overcorrecting here. We've got to be careful when we do and do not use the term homosexual. It has a charged history; if we can use less loaded language without changing the meaning, we should do it, to say nothing of the fact that this article would be dry as hell if we use the word homosexual exclusively hundreds of times. I thank you for your contributions. TheSavageNorwegian 15:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I also don't see any reason to replace "gay". As an article about humans, it's perfectly fine to say "gay" to refer to 'homosexual men', especially since excessive use of the latter can read strangely. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

i think the best strategy here is to conform to the language used in the studies cited; since "gay" is a subset of "human males who engage in homosexual behavior", the article should clearly reflect whether or not the claim they are making, in reference to the study cited, refers to the total set or to that subset

i do understand that it has a charged history; i don't edit LGBT-issues topics, i edit biology topics. there's probably evidence somewhere that NLGNY4 (or analogue) sensitivity predicts homosexuality in other animals, and these don't really have an identity. i can't predict whether "gay" will be charged language in the future (discriminatory and exclusionary of bisexuals, trans, queer, etc?) and this isn't really my issue or concern, i just want to see that the article reflects the set/subset studied where a source is used; if i overcorrected such that there is nonconvergence in this in any remaining point, please fix it, thanks Kaczynskisatva (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)