Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Africa and Azande society

I'm reverting the good-faith edit [1] by Haiduc for two reasons. First, the paragraph was already sourced and mentioned husbands, not wives. If someone (Haiduc?) has the work in question or can access it, perhaps we can know for sure which term, if either, Evans-Pritchard used. (If not, how about "spouses"?) Second, the precise nature of the sexual acts and Azande attitudes toward other acts seem excessively detailed for this article; nowhere else in the History section is there anywhere near that level of detail, so it's inconsistent and breaks the flow. IMHO. Rivertorch (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Part of the text of Evans-Pritchard's report is online here. Since the source mentions how they related I would accept that formulation (i.e. "intercrural"), and leave the further details for the Azande article. Haiduc (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Something wrong with the text

Currently there is a sentence in the part about American Indian practices that must be a mistake:

Their sexual life would be with the ordinary tribe members of the opposite sex. Male two-spirit people were prized as wives because of their greater strength and ability to work.

This says that individuals with male primary sexual characteristics had their "sexual live" with ordinary tribe members having female primary sexual characteristics, and that these same individuals with male primary sexual characteristics were prizes as wives -- by whom? Surely not by individuals with female primary sexual characteristics. So "opposite" above ought to be "same," no?

Someone with the ability to temporarily unlock this page, please fix this part. P0M (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I second the motion. I saw that sentence and wondered about it, too. Textorus (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the article's only semi-protected so any auto-confirmed user can edit it. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of the term 'LGBT' in this article distorts history

This article contains sentences such as this, 'With the outbreak of AIDS in the early 1980s, many LGBT groups and individuals organized campaigns to promote efforts in AIDS education, prevention, research, patient support, and community outreach, as well as to demand government support for these programs.'

This misrepresents history in two ways - first, the term 'LGBT' was not used in the early 1980s and thus there were no 'LGBT' groups then, second, I'm not sure that there is any evidence that transsexuals as a group had anything to do with organizing AIDS education (the T in LGBT stands for transsexuals). The use of terms like 'LGBT' should be cut back to the few cases where they are appropriate. Skoojal (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's common in scholarly work to refer to the LGBT population in the 1980s using the term "LGBT." See, e.g., [2]. And trans-rights activists/trans-inclusive organizations certainly were involved in responding to the HIV/AIDS crisis in the 1980s! (See, e.g., [3]). Fireplace (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that something is 'common in scholarly work' does not mean that it is correct. There is a serious misrepresentation of history involved here - one cannot refer to 'LGBT' groups for periods when the term was not used. It's wrong for the same reason that that it's wrong to say Stonewall began an 'LGBT' movement. Skoojal (talk) 08:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, it's propaganda to talk about the 'LGBT' community, as the article sometimes does. There is no such thing. Skoojal (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

About your last point, the Oxford American Dictionary defines "community" in various ways, among them these three:

"A group of people having . . . a particular characteristic in common [as in] the scientific community";
"a feeling of fellowship with others, as a result of sharing common attitudes, interests, and goals";
"a similarity or identity".

Each of these is arguably applicable to the term "LGBT community". I'm not sure what your specific objection is or why you think the wording is "propaganda", but I looked at each instance where it appears in the article and couldn't see a particular problem.

I'm really unclear on your earlier point. Are you saying that something doesn't exist until it's named? Was there no intelligence or justice in the world before those terms entered the language? How about quasars or DNA? Rivertorch (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not at all obvious that there is a 'feeling of fellowship with others' that would justify use of 'LGBT.' Far from it - bisexuals are not necessarily welcome to people in the gay community, lesbian women and gay men are not necessarily welcome in each other's communities, and transsexuals are not necessarily welcome among non-transsexuals. There is a lot of mutual hostility and no all embracing 'community.' Hence my use of the word propaganda. Skoojal (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As for 'similarity or identity', this is also not applicable. It seems that one of the purposes of 'LGBT' is to suggest an equivalence between homosexuality and transsexualism, which are distinct conditions. 'A group of people having a particular characteristic in common' is wrong for the same reason. Skoojal (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he means that it's wrong to retroactively label people who may never have applied that label to themselves; especially one that didn't even exist at the time. --G2bambino (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This is precisely what I mean. It's obviously wrong to try to re-write the past to try to make it conform to a current agenda. Skoojal (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but we use retroactive labeling all the time. To label a community "LGBT" isn't to say its members necessarily self-identify or self-identified as such. As human knowledge increases and is more widely disseminated, we apply lots of terms to past people, events, and phenomena that wouldn't have been applied in their day, it seems to me. Rivertorch (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That the idea that people can be meaningfully or usefully characterized as 'LGBT' is knowledge, rather than say belief or opinion, is something that needs to be argued. It certainly is not obviously true; nor does the assumption of one group of scholars that it is true make it true. Skoojal (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe people do use retroactive labeling all the time, but that doesn't make it scholarly or correct. It gives the impression that the acronym 'LGBT' existed in the 80s, and that the associated cooperation between groups of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered people was already established. I can't say I'm particularly knowledgable about the subject, but were there even transgender and bisexual groups organising campaigns to promote efforts in AIDS education, prevention, research, patient support, and community outreach in the 80s? --G2bambino (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

For responses to each of these two points, see the citations I provided in my initial response to Skoojal. Fireplace (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems you searched for the terms "transgender activism AIDS 1980s." That may confirm there were transgender activists against AIDS in the 80s, but still no mention of bisexually identified people, any organised cooperation amongst the four groups, or any mention of the acronym "LGBT." --G2bambino (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

For bisexuals, see [4]. Regarding use of the term LGBT, it's uncontroversial that activists from those four groups have been politically aligned (with occasional schisms) since Stonewall. The term is commonly used to describe the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender population in the 1980s in scholarly work. For coordination, see [5]. It's just shorthand -- it's not imposing a new conceptual framework (cf. using 'homosexual' to describe Socrates, which is problematic for that reason). Now, obviously there's room for a lot more to be said, including about the exclusion of bi and trans people from the mainstream gay and lesbian political agenda, the dominance within the gay and lesbian political agenda of issues disproportionately affecting white upper-middle class gay men, the impact of AIDS on various LGBT subcultures (trans sex workers, e.g.), etc. All that is well-documented, and just needs an impassioned editor to take up its cause. But this issue is making a mountain out of a molehill -- it's just shorthand, and it's widely used by the scholarly community. Fireplace (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Leaving wishful thinking aside, 'with occasional schisms' is just not correct. In particular, it is not correct where transsexuals are concerned. There has been long-standing hostility between male-to-female transsexuals and lesbians, for instance; these groups are generally not allies at all, but enemies. Thus one can't honestly talk about an 'LGBT' community - it is an aspiration, not a reality. And to repeat myself, the use of a term in scholarly work does not prove that it is correct. Skoojal (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I'm not really qualified to comment on how coherent the LGBT community was (or whether it was a community at all), but if consensus determines that it is, how about adding a footnote saying something like "although the term LGBT was not coined / did not come into widespread use until [date]"? That prevents the article from giving the impression that the acronym 'LGBT' existed in the 80s as G2bambino says. Given that clarification I see no problem in retroactive relabelling in itself: shall we cease referring to the "Ancient Greeks" since they never called themselves that? Olaf Davis | Talk 20:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

'Consensus' can say what it likes, but in reality there is no such thing as the 'LGBT community'. Refering to the 'LGBT community' for periods when that term was not used has nothing in common with refering in English to 'the ancient Greeks.' There is no other term that can be used in English to describe the Greeks; there are other English terms that can be used to describe the so-called LGBT community. Skoojal (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why can't it be used as a backdated, general term? Obviously, if there were other elements such as SexRadical or SexRef which have since departed the LGBT movement, it needs noting. forestPIG 10:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

For better or worse, the content of Wikipedia articles is decided by consensus, so if consensus 'says what it likes' then that's what we get.

What term do you propose instead of 'LGBT communties', Skoojal? Olaf Davis | Talk 15:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The article could use any term that was actually used at the time to describe any phase of the gay movement. 'Gay and lesbian' would probably do just fine. If any particular phase of the movement involved transsexuals, then mention them, preferably with a cite to show their involvement. Skoojal (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion strikes me a bit pointless. From my outside perspective I have to say that the term to be used is what can be attributed to reliable sources. Despite assertions that it is incorrect, the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia appears to be verifiability not truth. If, as Fireplace says, the common term in scholarly literature is LGBT, then that is the term to be used unless reliable sources can be produced that state otherwise, likewise if a footnote disclaimer is to be included about use of the term in the 1980s, it too must be reliably sourced, otherwise it's a no-go. Since Skoojal has not produced a single source to back up his/her assertions, I'd say it's a moot point. Just my input based on what I have read of policy.--Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The assumption that terms used commonly in scholarly literary must be correct is odd. Scholarly literature can be as tendentious as any other kind of literature. I'm not rushing to change the use of 'LGBT' in this article, but will probably be doing so in future, as the term is an anachronism as applied to the 1980s. Skoojal (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you find a reliable source to cite that agrees with you that it's an anachronism, that may well be worth mentioning in the article. But I don't think you've quite made the case that the usage is inappropriate here. I concur with Aujourd'hui re verifiability. Rivertorch (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal, you said "The assumption that terms used commonly in scholarly literary must be correct is odd" in response to Aujourd'hui, but Aujourd'hui had just pointed out that it's not correctness we have to determine but verifiability. Since we're a tertiary source, if scholarly publications use a particular term then it's appropriate for us to repeat it. If those scholars are wrong then we have to wait for other reliable sources to point that out. Olaf Davis | Talk 23:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that the term LGBT wasn't used until the 1990s. I will find a source for this. Using the term for what happened before then is an anachronism, which isn't justified even if scholars do it. Skoojal (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Marriage and civil unions

Same sex marriage is now be legal in California as of June 17, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.105.213 (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is actually legal now, the court has until 17 June to stay its ruling in anticipation of a proposed discrimination amendment to the California constitution. I've updated the text ... map already reflects California's new status.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Refusal to use the term "Gay" as an alternative to "male homosexuality" (or more recently, "homosexuality" in general).

My refusal to use "Gay" as a quasi-euphemism for "male homosexuality" has nothing to do with homophobia. Gore Vidal, at least as renowned for defending homosexuality as normal as he is as a man of letters, also refuses to use Gay in that context for the same reason: its origin. “Gay” was used as a code-word by New York “flamers”: grossly effeminate homosexuals whose sexuality was all-too-obvious. In 1969 came the famous incident of the patrons of one of New York’s homosexual pubs, rather than meekly enduring another raid, fought back, lobbing bottles of liquor, like hand grenades, forcing the NYCPD to hide for protection and beat a hasty exit. (It was so routine, no one bothered to bring a phone to call for reinforcements.) The sight of Gotham’s Finest fleeing for their lives from the Fluffy Sweater SWAT Squad was the No. 1 media event of that and several evenings running. So as to make it truly a media event, the most outrageous queen around was selected as the “Spokesman for the ‘Community’.” He/she/it objected to “homosexual”; it sounded too “medicinal”; instead, the media should use the word the insiders used: GAY!

So as the result of the ukase of an “authority” chosen for being a Standing Embarrassment, the word meaning “carefree, fun-loving, & jolly” was now also to mean “male homosexual”. Also? Actually, the original meaning of the word seems to be lost. Now, “gay” means only “male homosexual”. Increasingly, the “male” is being dropped. If Lesbian works for females, how about Spartan for males? There’s stronger evidence that same-sex bonding took place among the Spartans (and in Thebes), than that Sappho was a muff-diver.

= But GAY, NO WAY! = 71.105.197.135 (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC) G. J. Lehmann 13 June 2008

Errr... that's nice, but it's a personal opinion. I'm glad you want to reform the English language for your own personal reasons, but, uh, this isn't the place to do it. This is an encyclopedia.

Also, ukase? Seriously? em zilch (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

free speech of Christians

I have to add that that the new edits about gay rights inhibiting Christians' freedom of speech needs to be expanded because I don't get that at all. In fact, simple drawings with stick figures may have to be included. --Moni3 (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The LGBT rights opposition and Homosexuality_and_Christianity#Conflicts have more detailed descriptions. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If we are indeed working toward a GA (and I use "we" loosely, since I haven't edited the article), concepts should be explained independently from other articles. I think describing exactly how gay rights conflicts with some Christians' freedom of speech is worth explaining. Gays aren't synonymous with government and power and can't arrest people for saying anything, so technically it's a fallacy. What do these Christians mean by this issue? --Moni3 (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What are these diffs? The article is so sprawling that I'm missing the parts you're referring to.

Dybryd (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Here. Under the Politics section. --Moni3 (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Dybryd (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Prevalence

First off, Marion is almost certainly right that 2% to 4% is the best estimate. That does not mean that this estimate can simply be presented as fact, without a qualifier about how making a reliable estimate is difficult. Also, as I pointed out, estimates do vary widely, up to about 10%. I don't for one moment think that that high estimate is correct, but that does not stop people from making it, and the article needs to reflect that. Skoojal (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be qualified that this estimate is the percentage of people who answer affirmatively over an anonymous phone poll. Most people agree that it's a low estimate because many are not even out of the closet, and many more, although otherwise out, would not say so over the phone to someone they didn't know. It also really depends on how the question is phrased ... Kinsey found 37% of males had at least one homosexual experience. Does this mean they could be considered homosexual? What about one who knows he's homosexual but has never had an experience? It's very complex.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I can say only what the research literature says, which has been roughly 2-4% in every representative poll ever conducted. There are people who say it's low (those people almost always being activists, or students of activists, who benefit from higher estimates), but there is little scientific basis for saying so: Although 2-4% say that are homosexual, higher proportions will say that they ever sexually experimented or had a same-sex fantasy and so on. So, although it seems intuitive to say that not everyone would answer yes to being in a stigmatized group, it is much harder to make the case that people hide some stigmatized characteristics and not others. Moreover, 2-4% is pretty constant across countries, despite the differences in stimga between those countries. If stigma greatly affected the estimates, then one would expect the rates to differ by country, and they do not seem to.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Marion, you wrote, 'it is much harder to make the case that people hide some stigmatized characteristics and not others.' To the contrary, it is quite easy to make that case. Some stigmatized characteristics are more stigmatized than others. People may feel especially sensitive about homosexuality, for whatever reason. Skoojal (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It is also something that has been fairly universally stigmatized, only less so in recent decades in some cultures (of course there are exceptional cultures who have long accepted homosexual behavior as normal). I am not sure you're being unbiased here yourself: "every representative poll ever conducted" is a pretty strong statement. Usually people that make such absolute remarks have an activist agenda of their own. I think the reason the figure is disputed is because of the very fact that different polls and assessments arrive at different numbers. Perhaps this article lacks citations to reflect that. Once again, the 2-4% figures in the research you mention (hardly every study ever done) are self-reported openly gay, which is not the same as innately homosexual, hence the demographic discrepancies. I would also take exception to the rates not varying across cultures. Wasn't it the president of Iran who said they had no homosexuals in his country? Almost every male member of certain tribes in Papua New Guinea has sexual relations with other males, which would be at the opposite extreme of the range. There is scientific basis for saying so, which is why there is disagreement over the figure.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

In saying "every representative poll ever conducted," I meant it literally. The list of studies I put in the header is exhaustive; at least, if I have missed a study in that list, it was by accident. Neither of the above counter examples disagrees with my statement: The claim by the President of Iran was not, of course, on the basis of a representative study, and the New Guinea tribe (I think Gil Herdt was the researcher who studied them) was never about being homosexual as a sexual orientation. The variablity among results is a characteristic only of the non-representative studies; the studies that used representative sampling have been remarkably consistent in their results...2-4%. If you want to divide the claims into prevalence of homosexual behavior vs. prevalence of homosexual identity and so on, it would certainly be useful to readers, as would dividing estimates based on whether the researchers used a convenience sample (like Kinsey) versus a more sophisticated method.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder whether we might be taking an overly restrictive view. We should not limit ourselves to orientation, as opposed to practice. We should also recognize that prevalence varies by age group, country, and historical period. Haiduc (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think each approach has merits; the important part (to me) is to be clear about when one is discussing behavior vs. discussing identity etc. It would be an error to take statements about behavior and treat them as if they were statements about orientation, for example.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

So perhaps, under "demographics," we should treat the two in parallel, mentioning that in modern societies orientation seems to be whatever the surveys indicate, but that practice can vary by culture and age. I will look for references. Haiduc (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as no figures are stated as fact. forestPIG 22:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. But, I still disagree that the figures would be an absolute descriptor of orientation, even apart from practice. Self-identity, perhaps. Some would also argue that a western idea of sexual orientation is a social construct anyway (for the very reason of behavior versus identity versus culture). I haven't had time to research the citations, but I know Bogaert's methods have been criticized. Also, if it's so universally 2-4%, why does the lead say "2-7%"? If and when I have time to find reliable studies other than the ones already cited, I'll bring them here for discussion.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've been reading some of the source articles. Prevalence has a huge range depending on how homosexuality is defined (see my comments under POV... Kinsey). It can be between 3% and 21%, according to one source, and others have widely varying numbers as well. The lead is clearly POV and I'm considering an edit to reflect the figures in the actual citations given. I've also read that certain administrators don't think any citations should be in the lead, but in the more detailed sub-sections (i.e., the lead should be a short summation of the entire article). Thoughts?Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

On citations in the lead: If it is a quote, cite it always. If they are statistics that are likely to be disputed, I would say cite them for this article in particular. The usual rule is that if a statistic is covered in the text, it will be cited there, but this article is extra controversial. There is an instance in the lead now of six or seven citations. That's messy. I'd say no more than three, then move the rest of them to footnotes. So it would read as (ref)(ref)(ref) and in the third ref would be the other three or four supporting citations. --Moni3 (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In theory, and usually in practice, what "certain administrators" think doesn't carry more weight than what any of the rest of us think. I think it's probably unavoidable to entirely avoid citations in the lead of this article, but there are way too many of them now and it looks messy. Does the prevalence information need to be in the lead, anyway? It doesn't seem quite basic enough to be there. Wherever it ends up, given the liberal way homosexuality is defined in the first sentence, the 2–7 percent figures seem low. Rivertorch (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

POV subsection based solely on Kinsey

The subsection "Homosexuality vs. bisexuality" is based solely on a mostly superseded and extremely controversial writer, and includes his discredited "10%" number without commentary. It's so POV that I'm inclined to just cut, rather than trying to fix it. The "vs" in the title is pretty biased all by itself!

Dybryd (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and cut it, but here is the text in case anyone else feels moved to try to improve it. I don't think there's anything to be salvaged from it, though.

Homosexuality versus bisexuality

According to Alfred Kinsey's study on human male sexuality in the mid-20th century, males do not fall into only two categories of heterosexual and homosexual. Among the sample group:

• 10 percent of surveyed males were "predominantly homosexual" between ages 16 to 55.
• 8 percent were "exclusively homosexual for at least three years" between ages 16 and 55.
• 4 percent of white men had been "exclusively homosexual" since the beginning of puberty up to the time of the study.

Kinsey's studies, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, found that many people have had homosexual experiences or sensations. The Kinsey Reports found that approximately four percent of adult Americans were predominantly gay or lesbian for their entire lives, and approximately 10 percent were predominantly gay or lesbian for some portion of their lives. Some studies have disputed Kinsey's methodology and have suggested that these reports overstated the occurrence of bisexuality and homosexuality in human populations.</ref> Some posit that "sexual orientation ranges along a continuum from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual," homosexuality is often contrasted with heterosexuality (primary or exclusive opposite-sex attraction) and bisexuality (a significant degree of attraction to both sexes) nonetheless.

Dybryd (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that people confuse Kinsey's cultural importance (high) with the accuracy of his actual findings (low). Personally, I have no problem acknowleding the former, but his stats frequently get highly undue weight.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the issue could be resolved simply by 1) beginning with the Kinsey findings (certainly WP:N despite the methodological issues); 2) adding a transition sentence or two into a discussion of later findings; and 3) discussing the later findings. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that that would be appropriate for a "homosexuality vs. bisexuality" section -- or that a section with this title can be made NPOV. "vs"? What the heck?

In a section about the history of 20th-century American attitudes, the cultural impact of Kinsey's work would take a central place. But, in a section with the dubious aim of defining homo- and bisexuality against each other, Kinsey's old data is just ... old.

Dybryd (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not that familiar with modern vies of Kinsey, but I have read material that confirms the validity of his findings and methods. How can you corroborate your opinion that his work has been superseded? Haiduc (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there are definitely some methodological issues with Kinsey's work. For instance, his sample certainly wasn't representative of a very large population, and I believe he engaged in some snowball sampling. The problem with relegating Kinsey (entirely) to some "history" section, though (as if anything occurs outside of history in the first place!), is that his contributions were so significant that they give a necessary context to later work. For example, I believe Kinsey was the first to conceptualize sexual orientation along a continuum. (On that note, I agree that the "homosexuality vs. bisexuality" title was misleading; Kinsey's whole discovery--which still, I believe, holds true in general today--is that there is no meaningful "vs." in this regard.) So if we simply refer to later studies that assume continuity, then we ignore the fact that such continuity hasn't been self-evident for ages and that it was an idea that germinated, blossomed, and continues to grow from a seed that Kinsey planted. Sure, the 10% figure may be off--even way off--but it, too, gives context to later acknowledgements--namely that homosexuality isn't some esoteric idea. I agree that the section needs more content, and that the title needs to be redone. But methodological problems don't necessarily equate to contemporary irrelevance. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Haiduc asked for evidence that Kinsey's work has been superceded. These are already provided in the header: The references in the header identify just about every modern, representative study of the prevelance of sexual orientation. They all disconfirm Kinsey's results (with regard to this issue, anyway).
• It is untrue that Kinsey discovered that sexual orientation is a continuum rather than a dichotomy. Rather, he decided to ask people on the basis of a scale rather than with a yes/no question. Because his questions (which are not outlined clearly in his book) combined behavior, fantasy, and identity, it has never been clear what exactly it was that he measured. Subsequent research has shown that male sexual orientation is quite dichotomous (except for some paraphilias and other uncommon features), whereas female sexual orientation is much less specific. (There exist rumors that Kinsey wanted to show the existance of bisexuality so as to justify his being gay with having a wife.)
• Although Kinsey's data on this topic are clearly non-representative (he over-sampled gay bar, jails, and other places where homosexual behavior was more likely to be reported), I don't think he can be faulted with having only a small sample.
• I do not believe it is accurate to say that Kinsey is responsible for showing that homosexuality isn't some esoteric idea. Previous researchers, such as Havelock Ellis and Magnus Hircshfeld did much more than Kinsey. Those characters have been replaced by Kinsey in fame, however, because WWII happened, wiping out much memory of the European researchers and leaving a knowledge-vaccuum in the U.S. for Kinsey to fill. My personal opinion is that an encyclopedia like this is precisely the right place to give a better balanced review of this history rather than merely to recapitulate a history based mainly on Kinsey's U.S. celebrity.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well-said. I think both of our comments are pointing in the same general direction, though, namely toward a more historically-inclusive (versus a more historically-exclusive) revision of this section. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I still take issue with your assertion that "just about all" studies show a lower prevalence than Kinsey (and, earlier you said "all", so interesting that it's changing). In fact, citation number 11 shows a prevalence of 3-21%, depending on how the term "homosexuality" might be defined, further underscoring the importance of citing the true range of research figures and not perpetuating the POV of strictly 2-4%.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7611844

It also shows quite a disparity between the three countries studied: U.S., U.K., and France, which also suggests cultural and/or hereditary variation. Also, I don't know where you're getting your info that male sexuality is dichotomous. And, does dichotomous mean only opposite sex vs. same sex? That's quite a naive and antiquated view of human sexual behavior. Regardless of methodological flaws with Kinsey's research, it still got people thinking in a different way about human sexuality and its natural variation (and perhaps he was filling a void occupied by earlier researchers, but it was nonetheless a knowledge void). My methods of research are quite clearly not strictly scientific, but anecdotally I can tell you a LOT more men are "homosexual" than you would think by our socialized concept of how infrequent it supposedly is. I can't tell you the number of times I've been hit on by "straight" men with girlfriends or wives who don't know and may well never find out. Didn't y'all see Brokeback Mountain for God's sake? Think of all the fishing buddies that are doing more than just casting fishing poles. I jest, but my point couldn't be more serious ... this discussion is just so one-sided regarding prevalence figures, even with the fact that the very citations disagree with the lead. It would be POV to cite Kinsey's research as absolute gospel, but it would also be POV to exclude it. Our job here is not to interpret the studies but to present them. Once my PhD friend who knows all the studies and sources gets back in town I'll present here, until then, on with the discourse... Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 09:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You know what, I've found further evidence that someone authoring parts of this article picked and chose based on his/her personal POV. In "Environment", citations 177 and 178 don't give credence to the domineering mother/absent father theory ... in fact, he kind of refutes it - the original theory of which was proposed by Freud, which he cites. Psychoanalysts have moved away from that hypothesis based on research, and it's POV to perpetuate that myth. Furthermore, should we really be citing opinion books that haven't used a recognized scientific method and been peer reviewed? If we do use these citations, we can therefore also reference them to support higher prevalence figures, which are also therein. I also propose returning at least a vestige of Kinsey's research given its importance to the field. Validity questions of the methodology can be raised and the reader left to decide.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for re-write

I realize this is a tedious proposal, but there really are a number of issues with the current article that make the entire thing difficult to salvage. While there is a lot of useful encylopedic data, much of it is obscured by random, trivial factoids and paragraphs of such info might be sourced merely on some survey conducted decades ago under conditions we can't even be sure meets scientific criteria. I think it would be a good idea to base more of the article's information on modern studies, and keep a very close eye on any pseudo-scientific / theoretical data that may creep its way into the article. Basically: tread very lightly when it comes to presenting theories and experimental ideas, and just stick to what we do know for certain about the subject. That may call for a rather large chunk of the article to be removed.

Another matter is reducing article bloat. Many sections that go into extensive detail could easily just redirect to other articles on the same subject. For instance, Homosexuality#Theories_of_causality is already covered in Biology_and_sexual_orientation. It would be a good idea to sort of summarize this section and just redirect to other articles where appropriate. We could even salvage some of the info from this section and inject it into those articles. Many sections call for this sort of attention. Another idea to address article bloat would be to convert the references section into a scrolling list. I'm not sure which template is used to do this, but I've seen it in other articles. It would definitely be helpful here.

Lastly, many editors who contribute toward this article regularly seem to be under the impression that anything with a factual backing merits inclusion in the article. We really need to discuss this attitude, and how it's affecting the article's tone. For instance, POV-pushers who include data that correlates sexual practices with rates / risk of STI infection. Although it's factual, how one goes about presenting it (and where) is a matter to be monitored very carefully. There are already numerous other articles related to this subject, and again, it would be better to simply redirect to them if a mention of the subject is pertinent to the article matter itself. However, the manner in which this data is currently presented falls under trivial mention, and sounds like the article is attempting to warn us against certain sexual practices. It feels really inappropriate.

So, hopefully we can discuss this proposal further and maybe come upon some sort of agreement. I think the first matter is determining the sectional layout and the general bases that need to be presented. Trivial items should probably be omitted completely, or at least redirect to other articles on the subject. I feel there is currently a lot of redundance. 65.6.42.49 (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly support this, but it's an enormous project! Dybryd (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, 65.6.42.49 (particularly about the sexual practices/health section). This is a splintered article that is quite controversial, and difficult at this juncture to gain any cohesiveness. I'm wary of getting sucked into it because I'm trying to usher a massive project through FAC, and this will no doubt be an exhausting endeavor. I'm trying to offer advice on the sideline, much like an armchair quarterback, and my comments may be both helpful and aggravating. --Moni3 (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Large articles that have incrementally grown over a long period of time with the contributions of sundry editors can get unwieldy, disorganized and repetitious. This article certainly could use a review and cleanup. Of course, one man's cleanup (or re-write) is another's butchery. I would also be very careful of pointing fingers at other people's "POV." We all have a POV and only by working in concert can we achieve a neutral tone. But I am game for a re-write, if others are too. Haiduc (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The Biology_and_sexual_orientation page only talks about biological causes. It doesn't talk about non-biological causes. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What I would really like to focus on here is what constitutes justification for including research / data in this article. I keep glaring over the paragraphs mentioning risks with sexual activities, and wonder what they hell they're doing there in the first place. When you crack open an encyclopedia, is that what you expect to see? We really need to strive for an article that focuses on the actual subject, not digresses upon every little viewpoint and piece of "cultural history" that supports a particular agenda. "Homosexuality is..." That is what the article needs to explain to the reader. It does not need to speculate on the sexual habbits of people who identify with homosexuality, nor does it need to give the reader medical advice. 74.242.121.93 (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This does need some rework. The article is 135 KB, much greater than the recommended. Past 100 KB it should "Almost certainly should be divided". It currently is the 263rd longest article on Wikipedia[6]. Most of the longer articles are lists.

One of the problems is that the article is talking about "sexual behavior with or attraction to people of the same sex, or to a sexual orientation." Maybe if we put stuff that clearly only related to a homosexual orientation, such as causes and demographics, on its own page instead of having it redirect here, that would clear this page up substantially. Other orientations have their own page; why can't a homosexual orientation? Also, there is a lot of redundancy between what is on this page and what is on same-sex relationships. We could probably summarize a lot of information here, and then move more things that have to do with same-sex relationships, like much of the history section, over to that page. By mostly dealing with homosexual orientation and homosexual relationships on their respective pages, it would greatly clear this page up. It would also avoid any confusion such as trying to relate STDs to sexual orientation when it clearly is about sexual behavior. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

the gay male AIDS epidemic -- no article? really?

Well, now that people are agreeing with me, I think I'll change my tune. I think "globalizing" the health section is a mistake. The Western gay male AIDS epidemic -- specifically -- is a huge and important encyclopedic subject. Culturally, it has had a unique place in the history of gay rights and the LGBT movement as a whole, galvanizing all sorts of activism, drastically raising the visibility of LGBT issues, but crowding out all issues but itself for the better part of a decade. It deserves lengthy treatment.

Really, it deserves its own article, and I'm kind of astonished, browsing idly around, that there doesn't seem to be one. Am I just missing it? The article that I found to link to, AIDS pandemic, while quite good for what it is, doesn't fit the bill. It treats AIDS geographically, with America, Europe, and Africa as three separate categories side by side. Of course, AIDS in Europe is basically part of the same story as AIDS in America -- medically, socially, epidemiologically -- while AIDS in Africa is a very different one.

So, I think gay male AIDS really merits specific discussion -- either in a new article or at least for now in its own section here. To have the capper of the section about a plague that's claimed thousands be "Lesbians get vaginosis! Oh no! Not vaginosis!" (vaginosis is almost totally harmless) is just silly. The material on other gay male STDs, while medically and socially significant, is also a related but separate story.

I apologize if, not for the first time, I'm commenting before doing enough fact-checking, and there is an existing article that I just haven't seen.

Dybryd (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Dybryd. It's quite a loaded topic, though. You should read the discussion in WP:LGBT just about tagging AIDS/HIV articles with the LGBT project tag. One member threated to quit if we did that, and another threatened to quit if we didn't. In that section you can see the AIDS template, and there doesn't seem to be an article regarding the effect of AIDS on the gay community in any country.

I also agree with the nuttiness that makes it seem as if a woman who engages in sex with another woman will get vaginosis, and it's on par with HIV. While I know what it actually says: there's a higher transmission rate of vaginosis between women, the way it reads is sex between women is unhealthy. I think the danger in the topic of men's health is that it reads that sex between men is deadly. --Moni3 (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Referring back to the discussion just above this one, there are a couple of problems with this idea: 1.) it is already mentioned in numerous other articles; more or less all related to the subject of HIV/AIDS itself. Ths subject is extensively and redundantly covered here on Wikipedia. 2.) the article is already bloated with random bits and pieces of data, wherever some editor felt they were appropriate. Remember that just because something can be supported does not mean it is worth mentioning. We cannot cram articles full of random data. It is important for an article to be encyclopedic in nature, and only state what the subject is. Bringing up the subject of HIV/AIDS transmission among gay males is not relevant to this topic, and again, is already covered elsewhere.

I might venture to say this is more POV-pushing, considering where these proposals are coming from. I see a lot of frequent activity in religious discussions about sexuality, as well as affiliations with Ex-Gay communities and similar subjects of interest. 74.242.121.93 (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What is POV about covering the clear association between the certain aspects of male homosexuality and the epidemics of disease ravaging the male homosexual population??? Are you denying a cause and effect relationship between unprotected anal sex with multiple partners and infection with a number of diseases, some deadly and some not? Just because AIDS and HIV have other vectors as well, should we deny this one, the most important outside of Africa in the last quarter century? And what is this rubbish about smearing other editors because they participate in religious discussions? Haiduc (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, anyone who write about Thai King please show your proof.

Please take the time to review WP:NPOV 74.242.99.145 (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think an article that discusses the impact of AIDS in the gay community is completely legitimate and worthy of attention. I don't see this subject covered extensively and redundantly. --Moni3 (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Gays in heterosexual marriages

The marriage section assumes that all gays and lesbians who marry do so with same-sex partners. A significant number of LGB people are heterosexually married. I wrote about this in the marriage section, but it was reverted twice without explanation. To pretend that LGB people only marry same-sex partners is inaccurate and POV. We need to cover the whole range of experiences of people with a homosexual orientation, not just those who pursue homosexual relationships. We can't favor what one portion of the population over the other. To do so would inaccurately describe what it means to have a homosexual orientation. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There was one particularly notable instance of two activists, the woman a noted lesbian and the man a gay organizer, marrying and having children together. (I hope I am right on the details.) There are a million ways of living an authentic existence, whether gay or not, and we should certainly reflect that openness here. Haiduc (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Dybryd, I'd be interested in hearing your take on the situation.. --Nsaum75 (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, are you thinking of Andrea Dworkin and that gay guy...??--Agnaramasi (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes. Now that is freedom. Haiduc (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Dworkin and her husband didn't have children. Their love was certainly sincere, but from what I have read of her work and life, I don't think "freedom" is something she ever really found. Dybryd (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In the section regarding parenting, you changed "LGBT people are parents" to "same-sex couples". Many LGBT people are single parents and not in committed relationships. To state that its only "same-sex" does a disservice to the LGBT population as a whole. This is especially true since the Parenting section is not a subsection of the preceeding Marriage and Civil Unions section. --Nsaum75 (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have been snappish. Of course I've no wish to ignore or minimize LGBT in any form of relationship, as I would have hoped this diff (which seems to have been the immediate spur for Josh to paste in his paragraphs this time around) had made clear.

The most glaring problem with Josh's addition is with its sources. He quotes a sociological statistic (20% of gay men are in heterosexual marriages) to the Family Pride Coalition. But the Family Pride Coalition is a political advocacy organization on this issue, one with admirable goals in my opinion, but neither a first-hand source for statistics nor an ideal transmitter of second-hand statistics. Further, the references he provides are not to the Family Pride Coalition itself, but to mentions of them in a pair of advice columns, one a "lifestyles" story in a regional newspaper and another a personal essay on the user-written website About.com -- still less reliable. Further, he misquotes his sources in a typically Wikipedian way -- according to Rochelle Hentges of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and Sheri & Bob Stritof (whoever they may be), the numbers apply specifically to American gay men and women, but Wikipedia has elided the "American" and generalized the numbers to the whole world (I imagine in many countries without an open gay community, the percentage would be considerably higher). When I googled "Family Pride Coalition," I found that they have a research database on their website. This may contain the numbers attributed to the FPC by the two advice columns, and may provide the real source for them, which may be reliable and neutral, although my initial attempt to explore the database yielded only this tangentially related article. If the source data actually exists, the reader needs to be able to find it without spending half an hour searching in vain, as I have just done on Josh's behalf.

Okay, a little lower down in the paragraph we get three more sources. The first is a "human interest" newspaper story giving a personal account from a number of straight women married to gay men. The second is a similar personal account of a therapy group for gay Mormons. The third is a "plea" -- yes, it's a self-described "plea," folks -- from a gay Christian who struggles to stay celibate, published in self-described "magazine of Evangelical conviction." These are given as sources for general factual statements about what "many" married LGBT are like. Not ideal from the point of view of verifiability or neutrality.

So, those are the problems with the sourcing.

The other problems with the paragraphs are less cut-and-dried, and are mostly a question of organization and prioritizing. Everyone agrees that the Homosexuality article is sprawling and unmanageable. This situation is not aided by tossing in a couple of paragraphs on every aspect of every subtopic. I've said this a number of times to Josh, and he has even agreed, but he never stops! Section after section which is supposed to be a brief summary with a link to the subtopic article instead balloons to a full article in itself -- one at high risk of becoming inconsistent with the supposed main article on that topic, because they aren't maintained in parallel.

Then there is the question of where he chose to put his new paragraphs -- at the head of the section titled "marriage and civil unions." Sure -- as the title is not "same-sex marriage and civil unions," it was superficially on-topic to add some information about LGBT in heterosexual marriage. However, as everybody knows, same-sex marriage is a specific topic that is central to the present political and cultural discourse of homosexuality today.

LGBT in heterosexual marriages is a related topic, but not the same one, and not one that is the focus of public discussion of "gay marriage." To begin the section on marriage in the article homosexuality with a paragraph on heterosexual marriages is a pretty plain case of undue weight, and is simply going to confuse most readers when the arrive at the section. And on such a controversial issue, it is very difficult for me to see making the straight marriages of gay people more prominent than the gay marriages of gay people as anything but deliberate POV-pushing.

Oh yes, there's also Josh's edit summary. It read -- "Parenting: This section is talking about same-sex couples who are parents, not about gays and lesbians who are parents. Many LGB people raise kids while heterosexually married."

That entire summary refers to a two-word change in the "Parenting" section. The main part of the edit, however, was the addition a new, poorly sourced, arguably POV first paragraph to a different and much more controversial part of the article. Someone who relied on edit summaries to track changes to the article would be presented with an inaccurate idea of how the article was being altered. I'm sure that was unintentional.

I think these problems, taken together, made a simple revert of the additions reasonable. And now, despite, my initial protestation, I have spent a whole bunch of time and energy not in adding useful content to Wikipedia, but instead pointing out the all-too-obvious problems with somebody else's additions. I resent that use of my time.

Dybryd (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Concluding that to continue in the vein I'd been mining would be a Sisyphean ordeal, I've been staying away for several days. I believe the AIDS and STDs section is a travesty, but the simple suggestion of removing it seems to have mushroomed into a call to rewrite and/or split the entire article, which might be a good plan but really doesn't address the question of why we're going into detail about medical conditions in an article on homosexuality. At any rate, I do want to lend my support to Dybryd's objections to Joshua's material about couples and parents. Inserting data (or supposed data) about opposite-sex couples (not to mention gay individuals who fall all over themselves not to actually do anything gay) in the homosexuality article is perhaps reasonable; to do it repeatedly in multiple sections risks undue weight because it elevates the atypical people and behaviors above what is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. And the sources are laughable. Dybryd wondered who Sheri and Bob Stritof might be. I'm sure they're very nice people, but it seems they organize encounter weekends and "restore and sell old and novelty telephones[7]. Rivertorch (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you disagree that there is a substantial number of people who are primarily attracted to the opposite sex but are married to the same sex? If the problem is sources, I can see if I can find other sources. The 20% figure was printed in Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, which is why I used it, but I don't have to use those numbers. The article in the New York Time reports "2 to 4 percent of ever-married American women had knowingly or unknowingly been in what are now called mixed-orientation marriages." Then there is the study in The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States which reports 4.7% men married to woman and 5.2% of women married to men had some level of same sex attraction.[8] Personally, I don't care which sources we use, as long as we don't act like every married gay is married to a same-sex partner. I only wanted to add a couple lines, so I didn't add all the sources that I have, but I do have sources from CNN,[9] New York Times,[10] Pittsburgh Tribune-Review,[11] The Salt Lake Tribune,[12] Deseret Morning News,[13] This article which was printed in the Annual Review of Sex Research talks about the growing interest of mixed-orientation marriages in pyschology.[14]

This might not be as big of an issue as same-sex marriages, but it is still a note-worthy issue talked about in films such as Brokeback Mountain, De-Lovely, Far From Heaven, Imagine Me & You, as well as others. There are also some famous LGB people who are heterosexually married, such as Anne Heche (former girlfriend of Ellen DeGeneres to Coleman Laffoon, Julie Cypher (former girlfriend of Melissa Etheridge) to Matthew Hale. There are also marriages that ended in divorce such as Elton John and Renate Blaue as well as James E. McGreevey and Dina Matos McGreevey. Also evident is the number of support groups that have been set up to support people in mixed-orientation marriages.Straight Spouse Network, Gay Christian Group, Wildflowers, People Can Change, Women of Worth and Boston Gay & Bisexual Married Men's Support Group. It is talked about on shows like Oprah[15], and in books like:

• Living Two Lives: Married to a Man and in Love With a Woman
• "The Other Side of the Closet: The Coming Out Crisis for Straight Spouses and Families" by Amity Pierce Buxton
• "My Husband Is Gay: A Woman's Survival Guide," by Carol Grever
• "Husbands Who Love Men," by Arleen H. Alwood
• "Is He Straight? A Checklist for Women Who Wonder," by Bonnie Kaye, M. Ed.
• "Bisexual and Gay Husbands: Their Stories, Their Words" By Fred Klein, Tom Schwartz

My point is that it is a noteworthy topic in and of itself. If you need different sources, I can get them. My edits only added three lines, which is as many lines as is dedicated to Elisar von Kupffer. Same-sex marriages still have 23 lines. I'm not overwhelming same-sex marriages, and I can even move it to the end if you prefer. I don't think 3 lines is too much to ask. It also clarifies that not all married LGB people are married to same-sex partners which the section currently incorrectly implies.

The problem with the "Many LGBT people are parents" intro is that the section doesn't talk about LGBT parents. Read the rest of the section. It gives numbers of same-sex households with children, the fact that same-sex couples can adopt children, and psychological studies saying children raised by same-sex couples have the same level of competence. Nowhere in the section does it discuss either single LGB parents or heterosexually married LGB parents, not to mention transgendered parents. I'd be fine if the intro read "Many LGB people are parents, either with a same-sex partner, an opposite sex partner, or as single parents." That would not give the false impression that all LGB parents are in same-sex relationships, as the article currently implies. Joshuajohanson (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope it doesn't matter at all what I agree or disagree with. The problems are as I stated them. If you find other sources (which addresses one of the problems), try to make them verifiable, ideologically neutral sources.

Drawing up a longer and longer list of advice columns, personal narratives, and self-help books will not be helpful. Dybryd (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Dybryd on not using dubious sources such as the various "family" organizations, we all know where they are coming from, and with Joshua on providing balance to sections that are overly focused on newsworthy aspects. My interest is to maintain the perspective that there are many homosexualities, and to avoid sounding programmatic. Haiduc (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that advice columns, personal narratives and self-help books are not considered good sources by WP policy as it is. Political, or politically leaning, organizations are not considered adequate sources via WP policy either; thats not to say you won't find many examples on Wikipedia where they are used. However given the nature of this particular article, I'm of the opinion that we should probably stick to gathering content from organizations which are strictly and very very clearly non-bias. "Family" organizations and advice columns and the such, even if its published in the Washington Post, clearly have some form of bias at their root. However, Joshuajohanson (and others who may or may not have not spoken), what is your take on this proposal? --Nsaum75 (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My personal experience on a lesbian message board sponsored by Curve Magazine reflects that there are many women who get married and realize they are attracted to women. Some work through it to leave their husbands, get joint custody of their children, and declare themselves openly lesbian. Others inquire how to pursue lesbian relationships either with the full knowledge of their husbands, or ask how to maintain a relationship with a woman while not telling their husbands at all. They come from quite varied backgrounds. I find, again—only in personal experience—that lesbian women are in traditional marriages more than gay men because of the lack of financial and cultural options. I think if solid statistics could be found that reflect a percentage of these women, they should be included in the article. However, the question of reliable sources has rightly arisen. --Moni3 (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What am I trying to find sources for? That they exist? That they exist in substantial numbers? That it is politically important? That it is a social issue? Aren't CNN,[16] New York Times,[17] and The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States[18] reliable sources? I agree that about.com wasn't a good source. If you give me some time I could probably even find scientific studies as well. How many sources do I need? I don't want what happened on STDs to happen here, where I only added a simple line, but then I had to find a source that said men who have sex with men can get AIDS, then I had to find a source that men who have sex with men get AIDS at a higher rate than other men, then I had to find a source to say it wasn't just AIDS, then I had to find a source that said it wasn't just Western men, then I had to find a source that talked about women, then I was told it was too long. There is plenty of information out there. Just tell me what is needed so I can try to keep it down to 3 lines. I'll start looking for medical studies. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I do think that for the sake of clarity and focus, the subsection on same-sex marriage and civil unions should be its own section. Its content is legal and political -- it's not really about the kinds of relationships that LGBT may have.

There's quite a bit of good data on the varying forms of LGBT relationships and families, though, plenty for a diverse (but hopefully brief and to the point!) subsection called something like "forms of relationship."

Dybryd (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. My big problem was that it assumed the only married LGB people were in same-sex relationships. I believe your suggestion will resolve that concern. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A new focus for my grumpiness: the template

I'm just now having a look at the prominently featured Template:Sexual_orientation at the top of the page. It's silly. With joke terms like "pomosexual" and the inclusion of items like Autosexuality and Zoosexuality that I'm pretty sure most psychologists would categorize as paraphilias rather than orientations, it's an unfortunate mixture of frivolity and POV that I think reflects badly on the article.

Dybryd (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

For once, I completely agree with you. You can talk about that stuff at the Template_talk:Sexual_orientation. Another issue I have brought up there is that the sexual orientation template uses homosexuality, while the sexual identities template says homosexual. I think the sexual identity template is right. I've heard of a homosexual orientation, but not a homosexuality orientation. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the template talk page.

Dybryd (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OMG - It's Huge !!!

Just saying ... it may make sense to do a split as the content is hovering at 135 kilobytes long. As a bonus you can submit a Did you know for the new article created. Banjeboi 02:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest breaking out the "Theories of Causality" section. Dybryd (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest breaking out a homosexual orientation page and putting Theories of Causality, Demographics, Malleability and other things only related to sexual orientation on that. It can still be summarized on this page, since homosexuality is still a sexual orientation. This will also clear up the marriage, parenting and other sections so you don't have to constantly distinguish between whether you are talking about same-sex couples or people in a mixed-orientation marriage. It could also clear up the religious section, we don't have to cover what the different religious views of homosexual behavior and sexual orientations are. Joshuajohanson (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think having separate "homosexuality" and "homosexual orientation" pages would just be confusing.

Dybryd (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well then the orientation part deserves just as much weight as same-sex relationships, and all of the sections need to reflect what everyone with a homosexual orientation does, not just those pursuing same-sex relations. That gets confusing and lengthens the article, but it is the only way to be NPOV. Something drastic has to be done to get this article down to a reasonable size. By cutting it out, I'm not suggesting this page doesn't discuss homosexual orientation, just that it can refer to a page dedicated to homosexual orientation. I think that is a big enough topic to deserve a page in and of itself. Joshuajohanson (talk) 05:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What all do you think ought to be put into the separate "orientation" article, other than the theories of causality stuff? I'm looking over the article and I can't see which sections you want to break out. I think the best way to break up the article is to make new pages for sections that are long and self-contained (like "theories of causality"). But as it stands, it seems every section treats homosexuality partly as an orientation.

I don't agree that it's NPOV to treat every aspect of every subtopic in summary sections. That is what the full-length articles they are linked to are for. Dybryd (talk) 05:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And it's fine that every section treats homosexuality partly as an orientation, because it still is an orientation. Every section also deals with men who have sex with men and women who have sex with women even though there are separate articles for those too. Just because we have an article dedicated to a homosexual orientation doesn't mean homosexuality ceases to be a sexual orientation. A page dedicated to homosexual orientation would take out demographics, causes and malleability leaving in it's place a short paragraph with a redirect. That page would also have sections explaining in depth the relationship between a homosexual orientation and other aspects of homosexuality. It also would have the much needed room to continue to grow and develop, which it currently does not have. Joshuajohanson (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Parenting

The first sentence in this section reads "Many LGBT people are parents, often by way of adoption, donor insemination, foster parenting, or surrogacy." I question the fact that this is how it is often done. What about good old-fashioned getting heterosexually married, having children and raising them together with your spouse? According to the Pittsburgh tribune, 50% of gay men father their own children in the US.[19] This was brought up earlier, but got swallowed up in the marriage discussion.

Another problem is this does not contain a world-wide view. It favors countries where same-sex couples can live together and raise children. In places where same-sex relationships are forbidden, I would imagine that most gay men and lesbians heterosexually marry as is expected of them in their culture and go on to raise children. Even many gays and lesbians who raise kids with same-sex partners had the children through a previous, opposite-sex marriage. The whole rest of the section only deals with LGB people in an open same-sex relationship, which isn't a possibility for many LGB people in the world. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Data outside the West will be hard to find, though. Have you tried looking through the Family Pride Coalition's database to find the origin of those numbers from before? Dybryd (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. While that might not be a good source to say LGB people do raise kids in opposite-sex relationships, I don't think there is enough evidence that LGB people don't often raise children in opposite-sex relationships, which is what the current section implies and why there is still a fact tag there. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

GAR

What are the odds that this article can keep its Good Article rating? The only comment we've gotten so far at WP:GAR is that we should deal with the banners, and there are 3 of them: the article is too long, the section on the Middle East only has 2 citations, and there's a "not global" banner. I'd suggest that, in the Middle East section, we chuck all but the 2 paragraphs that have citations; that topic has its own article and we don't need to cover the information twice, and that will also shorten the article a little bit. Concerning the "not global" banner, less information about the US would be fine with me (again, we've got an article on that, no need to say it twice), and any information people want to pull over from the 2 "see also" articles for a global perspective would be fine with me. Then, we either have to find something to get rid of to make the article shorter, or someone has to argue at WP:GAR that the article should remain this long. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Request to all editors regarding sources

In just the past few days, the problem of bias in sources has come up twice. It is a difficult one to avoid on this topic.

If a large-scale reworking of the article is to go forward, as it seems likely to, I'm very concerned that the sources for new material be kept clean.

Accordingly, I'd like to make a special request. Before you add a material from any source to this article, please post the name of the source and a brief description of it to this talk page, and wait for a few other people to sign off on it before adding the material. It may seem cumbersome, but I believe this extra vigilance is warranted.

This will help editors to develop an understanding of what makes a reliable, neutral source. At the moment, editors who did not cause the problem of bad sourcing are having to do the work of catching bad sourcing, as Darimoma did above and as I did earlier this week. It would be much more efficient if everybody did this for themselves.

Thanks.

Dybryd (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and thanks for your work. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the issues that is brought up is that these new sources are old, including a paper published in the year 2000. How old is too old? Many of the sources are from the 90s or even earlier. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that G-guy has just recommended stripping the GA status from this page, and gives a long list of well-thought-out suggestions at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Homosexuality/1. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Mental Health

"Negative societal attitudes toward homosexuality contribute to stress and related mental disorders, and even suicide, in the LGBT community. However, there is evidence that the liberalization of these attitudes over the past few decades has resulted in a decrease in such mental health risks among younger LGBT people" This statement shows clear bias towards the LGBT community and encourages people not to discriminate. That is not the job of wikipedia. Mattjones17 (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not "bias" to say that certain actions have certain consequences. If you want to perform those actions, and to live with the consequences, then who's stopping you? No one's telling anyone what to do. The section doesn't say, "Don't do X because Y will happen." It's saying, "If X happens, then Y will happen." It's stating facts, not values. Are you aware of information that conflicts with what the section already says? If so, then feel free to add it. If not, then I'm not quite sure what you're expecting to accomplish. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the first sentence Mattjones refers to is not cited. (The source at the end of that paragraph only supports the second sentence) It would be good if someone interested in the subject would get a source for this. Although, I have to say, I wonder if we should do a reality check here, since we are asking for a source to support the assertion that "negative societal attitudes" against a person are likely to make them feel bad. heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

ForesticPig's change of wording to denote correlation rather than causation seems reasonable. I did change "some evidence" to "evidence", since the former is essentially meaningless in literal terms but possibly implies less than ample evidence. What's really weaselly is the "are said to" phrase. Either we find something worthwhile to cite and return to the former wording or the whole sentence should go. Rivertorch (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

My own modification should suffice, no? forestPIG 17:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the first sentence of the section is problematic. The phrase "are said to" is an example of weasel words. We need to either state it as fact and provide a citation to back it up or else discard it entirely. I am dealing with several deadlines today and can't possibly do any research until tomorrow at the earliest, but I'll begin by looking for a study regarding suicide and gay youth conducted in Massachusetts in the late '80s or early '90s (unless somebody beats me to it). Rivertorch (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I found several good sources to cite and, using one of them, rewrote the sentence. The weasel words are gone. Rivertorch (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

homosexuality in the dsm (as a mental disorder)

i think we should someone how put this information into the piece. though, we'll definitely need a consensus on the best way to do so.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_mental_health.HTML

it used to be a mental disorder. now it's not. we should discuss this under mental health. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.117.112 (talk) 07:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This is covered in the Pathological model of homosexuality section. Rivertorch (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: Get Rid of Three Sections that Overlap With Other Articles

The main thing that should be done to cut the article down to size is to get rid of sections 11, 12, and 13. These needlessly duplicate the material in the articles on sexual orientation and biology and sexual orientation (which should be merged, as there seems to be no rationale for having separate articles - I've just proposed this). Skoojal (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think sections that only have to do homosexuality (such as Pathological model of homosexuality), should not be on the generic sexual orientation page, but should be on one designed for homosexual orientation. If I were reading and I wanted to find out stuff about a homosexual orientation, where should I look? On the sexual orientation page? On the homosexuality page? On a page about homosexual orientation? I argue the later but I would definitely not want the sexual orientation page to be the main page for a homosexual orientation. I think moving that stuff over there would make the sexual orientation even heavier on the side on the homosexuality side than it already is. If we move all the stuff about a homosexual orientation over there, what is left about a homosexual orientation on this page.Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's inevitable that the sexual orientation article would tend to focus disproportionately on homosexuality. Up to a point, that isn't even a problem. Regarding scientific information about homosexuality, there should be a link in the article to the sexual orientation article, but perhaps not much more than that. Skoojal (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

sexual practices

The beginning of this section is poor. It supports a claim about sexual orientation with a statistic about same-sex attraction -- but people of all orientations may experience same-sex attraction so the statistic does not in fact support the claim. Rewrite needed.

Dybryd (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking we could merge this with the new Forms of relationships section you suggested, since I can see lots of redundancies between the two. There is still a correlation between same-sex attraction and homosexuality. How about we put those figures in the footnotes. The main thing I want in there is that not all gay people have gay sex. Same thing with the number that has the number of parents. How about this for a rewrite?

= = Forms of relationships = =

Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.[20] Not all gay men and lesbians have gay sex.[21] Many heterosexually marry[22] and have children.[23] at some point in their lives. LGB people heterosexually marry for a variety of reasons, including everything from discrimination, wishful thinking, to real affection and sexual love.[24] Many also report spiritual reasons.[25][26][27]

= = = Same-sex relationships = = =

Many gays and lesbians enter into same-sex relationships. [28] ...

Then we could go on talking about same-sex practices, STDs, and same-sex marriages. Most of the section will talk about same-sex relationships, but it will make clear many have opposite-sex relationships. What say ye? Joshuajohanson (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I prefer short, separate sections, partly so each can be linked to the longer article. Dybryd (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So do I. Remember, people come in here for specific information, rather than in search of an essay. The more clearly we compartmentalize things, the better we serve the reader. Haiduc (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I was confused what by what Dybyrd meant when it was suggested to put mixed-orientation marriages in a section called Forms of relationships. Isn't same-sex marriage also a form of relationship? Shouldn't they be under the same heading? We can still link the same-sex relationships section to its main article. Same-sex practices, STDs, and same-sex marriages can each still be in a short subsection, but rather than same-sex marriage being in the political section, it will be in the forms of relationships section, because ultimately marriage is about the person you are with, not the state. If marriage and civil unions are not under the heading same-sex relationships, it should be sensitive to all people with a homosexual orientation, and not blindly assume this is the only type of marriage they want. Joshuajohanson (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the legal and political changes around gay marriage will be most clear if treated separately from an overview of the various relationship structures. Dybryd (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a rewrite suggestion? Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable for now if the same-sex relationships section only deals with sexual practices, and marriage was left in the political section? Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This is what I was thinking of for the new section:

= = Forms of relationships = =

People with a homosexual orientation can express their sexuality in a variety of ways, and may or may not express it in their behaviors.[29] They can have sexual relationships predominately with people of their own gender, the opposite gender, both genders or they can be celibate.

= = = Opposite sex relationships = = =

Many LGB people have sexual relationships with someone of the opposite sex.[30] Reasons can include discrimination, wishful thinking, real affection, sexual love,[31] desire for family,[32] as well as spiritual reasons.[33][34][35] Many LGB people and their opposite sex partner enter into a mixed-orientation marriage[36][37] and have children.[38][39] While many hide their orientation from their spouse,[40] others develop a positive homosexual identity while maintaining a successful marriage.[41][42]

= = = Same-sex relationships = = =

Many gays and lesbians enter into same-sex relationships.[43] ...

Then we could go on and talk about sexual practices and STDs as it relates to same-sex couples. Joshuajohanson (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If I weren't so apt to assume good faith, I would think you must be joking. Opposite-sex relationships are dealt with first and get four lines and twelve citations, while same-sex relationships get one line and one citation plus a discussion of sexual practices and STDs? Give me a break. I'm not even going to bother going into the problems with many of the citations you selected or the lack of uniformity in wording between the two sections. What you propose is a blatant example of undue weight, and no way is it acceptable. Reality check: many—almost certainly most—LGB people have sexual relationships with people of the same sex for reasons very similar to the ones you single out in connection with opposite-sex couples, including "real affection, sexual love, desire for family, and spiritual reasons", and many same-sex couples have children. I don't think that level of detail is a good idea for this article, period, but my main point here is that your highly selective inclusions and suppressions are far from neutral. The structure you're proposing implies blanket differences between same- and opposite-sex relationships that simply don't exist. And if you really believe that opposite-sex relationships deserve such prominence in the homosexuality article, then it absolutely must talk about sexual practices and STDs as they relate to opposite-sex couples, as well. Absurd? Yeah, it is, and it's getting absurder by the day. I'm beginning to think this article is in worse shape than it was a month ago, and that's not good. There can be little doubt it is at risk of turning into a subtle polemic against same-sex relationships, which isn't exactly appropriate for an encyclopedia article, whatever one's inner biases may be. Rivertorch (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I can put same-sex relationships first. That isn't a problem. Almost the whole rest of the article is dealing with same-sex relationships, so I don't think you can say 4 lines is too much weight. I don't mind adding information about sexual practices, STDs or anything else you think should be added to this section, but I was trying to keep the section short. I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place here, one side saying 4 lines is too much weight and the other saying I'm purposely excluding information.

The different sections is not supposed to be a blanket difference between the two. In fact, part of the reason for this section is to show that they are like same-sex relationships. A lot of what is in that section, such as marriages and reasons, have been elaborated elsewhere. I originally wanted to put it in with the other marriage section, but they wanted to keep that political. I do not see why saying is true in the opposite sex relationship section negates same-sex relationships. Much of what is said here about opposite sex relationships is also said in other places about same-sex relationships. Do you have a suggestion on how I can reword it so I can say those things about opposite-sex relationships without making any implications towards same-sex relationships.

I also want to include same-sex marriage in the same-sex relationship section, but I was told it would be better in the politics section. But that isn't my main point. That isn't going to stop me from putting in 4 lines about opposite sex relationships. You can do whatever you want to the same-sex relationship section. You can put in any section or move out any section to wherever you want. You are also free to add as many citations as you want to the same-sex relationships section. My suggestion was based on what was already there. I'm really not dealing with that section with this suggestion. Go for it. Joshuajohanson (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to clarify. I didn't say that four lines were too many per se; I said they were too many in comparison to one line for same-sex relationships. I'm not sure who is accusing you of purposely excluding information about same-sex relationships, but it seems to me that neutrality should be the objective here, not striking a balance between factions. And neutrality cannot happen when consecutive, thematically parallel sections are handled very differently. If one section addresses certain attributes about one kind of relationship, while the next section ignores comparable attributes, that cannot be neutral because it carries misleading implications that could well throw a favorable light on one over the other. As for specific suggestions, I can only say this: if the section is going to discuss opposite-sex relationships in any detail, then it must discuss same-sex relationships in at least as much detail. (I say "at least" because the former are atypical; relatively few openly homosexual people are in long-term sexual relationships with partners of the opposite sex, and the data for closeted homosexual people is sketchy at best.) Rivertorch (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I originally suggested putting the same-sex marriage stuff in there, but they wanted it to be kept with the political stuff. Same-sex relationships is covered in depth elsewhere in the article, everything from the history of same-sex relationships, types of same-sex relationships, legality of same-sex relationships and so on. Maybe it would be better to put this section in the Anthropology section, where it lists other types of same-sex relationships. Would that be more neutral than putting it with sexual practices? That section is already discussing the types of same-sex relationships that exist. Wherever I put it, I won't be parallel because the aspects that need to be covered (specifically marriage) are already covered in the political section and can't be repeated.

Also, for the record, this article has never been about just openly homosexual people, but all of homosexuality, and the scarcity of data on closeted homosexuals should not restrict the information we do have. If you are going by pure numbers, I would venture that most homosexuals in the world are closeted, because in many places same-sex relationships are illegal and they are forced into the closet (which is just plain despicable.) Even in places where same-sex relationships are more generally accepted, you still have large numbers of homosexuals in the closet. Joshuajohanson (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

NEW SUGGESTION: How about we include both sexual practices as well as anthropology into the Forms of relationships section? I've also added some more verbiage to the same-sex relationships intro:

= = Forms of relationships = =

People with a homosexual orientation can express their sexuality in a variety of ways, and may or may not express it in their behaviors.[44] Research indicates that many lesbians and gay men want and have committed relationships. For example, survey data indicate that between 40% and 60% of gay men and between 45% and 80% of lesbians are currently involved in a romantic relationship.[45] They can have sexual relationships predominately with people of their own gender, the opposite gender, both genders or they can be celibate.[46]

= = = Same-sex relationships = = =

Studies have found same-sex and heterosexual couples to be equivalent to each other on measures of relationship satisfaction and commitment. Many lesbians and gay men form durable relationships. For example, survey data indicate that between 18% and 28% of gay couples and between 8% and 21% of lesbian couples in the U.S. have lived together 10 or more years.[47] The types of relationships vary according to culture norms and what is permitted by the law.

= = = = Anthropology = = = =

Scholars who study the social construction of homosexuality investigate the various forms that same-sex relationships have taken in different societies... (and so on directly copied from the section)

= = = = Sexual practices = = = =

As with any sexual relationship, same-sex couples may begin with various forms of foreplay such as fondling, caressing, and kissing, and may or may not experiment with other practices, as they see fit. Lesbian sex can include tribadism, mutual masturbation, cunnilingus, and the use of sex toys for vaginal or oral penetration or clitoral stimulation. For men, gay sex can include mutual masturbation, frot, intercrural sex, oral sex and anal sex.

People who have same-sex partners tend to ... (and so on directly copied from the section)

= = = Opposite sex relationships = = =

Many LGB people have sexual relationships with someone of the opposite sex.[48][49] Reasons can include discrimination, wishful thinking, real affection, sexual love,[50] desire for family,[51] as well as spiritual reasons.[52][53][54] Many LGB people and their opposite sex partner enter into a mixed-orientation marriage[55][56] and have children.[57][58] While many hide their orientation from their spouse,[59] others develop a positive homosexual identity while maintaining a successful marriage.[60][61]

I think it would be further enhanced by having same-sex unions in this section, but apparently it needs to be in the political section. This puts same-sex relationships first, talks very positively of it, and addresses many of the same things talked about in the opposite sex relationship category (with the exception of marriage, which I can't do anything about). Does this resolve your concerns? Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a vast improvement. Under same-sex relationships, the first sentence is problematic because it compares "same-sex" and "heterosexual"; changing "heterosexual" to "opposite-sex" would fix this. In the same paragraph, I'm unclear on what "culture norms" you're referring to, but I'd be inclined to simplify it to something like this: "The legal status of same-sex relationships varies by region".

I'm having trouble with the Anthropology and Sexual practices sections being inserted between the same- and opposite-sex relationships sections. There is a certain logic to the content of the Anthropology section's being there, but the heading probably should be ditched. As for Sexual practices, it really disrupts the flow. Amid the cacophony of calls for new, related articles, has anyone proposed creating Homosexual behavior? It currently redirects to Human sexual behavior, a regrettably short article. A new article might be a better place for the Sexual practices section.

In the Opposite sex relationships section there are too many citations and some aren't desirable ones. All of the haworthpress.com ones—e.g., [62]—aren'tworking at the moment, so I can't evaluate it. The CNN one [63] is almost entirely anecdotal and completely unnecessary. [64][65][66] are also anecdotal, and the word "spiritual" is potentially POV; "religious" would be a better choice. As I said before, the "and have children" part is gratuitous and runs the risk of implying that same-sex couples don't have children. Rivertorch (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I changed the proposed entry and moved it down here. I took the sexual practices section out completely and took out the heading from the Anthropology section. I made all of the word changes and took out the part about having children. I took out all of the anecdotal references, except for the Salt Lake Tribune Source, which although focuses on three anecdotal cases, also has a psychologist talking about mixed-orientation marriages in general. The vary by cultural norms was meant to introduce the section explaining the difference between Egalitarian, Gender-structured, and Age-structured, as well as marriage versus civil unions. Feel free to continue to edit this section, including removing a source and adding a cite needed tag. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

= = Forms of relationships = =

People with a homosexual orientation can express their sexuality in a variety of ways, and may or may not express it in their behaviors.[67] Research indicates that many lesbians and gay men want and have committed relationships. For example, survey data indicate that between 40% and 60% of gay men and between 45% and 80% of lesbians are currently involved in a romantic relationship.[68] They can have sexual relationships predominately with people of their own gender, the opposite gender, both genders or they can be celibate.[69]

= = = Same-sex relationships = = =

Studies have found same-sex and opposite-sex couples to be equivalent to each other on measures of relationship satisfaction and commitment. Many lesbians and gay men form durable relationships. For example, survey data indicate that between 18% and 28% of gay couples and between 8% and 21% of lesbian couples in the U.S. have lived together 10 or more years.[70] The types of relationships vary by region and what is permitted by law.

Scholars who study the social construction of homosexuality investigate the various forms that same-sex relationships have taken in different societies... (and so on directly copied from the Anthropology section)

= = = Opposite sex relationships = = =

Many LGB people have sexual relationships with someone of the opposite sex.[71] Reasons can include discrimination, wishful thinking, real affection, sexual love,[72] desire for family,[73] as well as religious reasons.[74][75][76] Many LGB people and their opposite sex partner enter into a mixed-orientation marriage.[77][78] While many hide their orientation from their spouse,[79] others develop a positive homosexual identity while maintaining a successful marriage.[80][81]

Way, way better. I see no significant problems at this point. (That doesn't mean there aren't any, of course!) Rivertorch (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Misleading and incorrect references

I've found a couple of statements on this article which give a reference, but either present the information from that reference misleadingly or incorrectly:

Article says: People who have same-sex partners tend to have more sexual partners overall... men who had at least one male sexual partner in the previous 5 years had an average of 16.7 sexual partners during that time period... Women with female sexual partners had an average of 10.1 partners while women with only male partners had an average of 2.2 partners.

The source is a book which is 14 years old, and, I don't think, can be considered a reasonable source with regards to what happens now.

Article says: In the modern west, [men who have sex with men] are more likely to have casual sex and unprotected sex, putting them at higher risk for HIV transmission than others in their own cultures.

The source is a study of HIV-infected individuals only, and only says HIV-infected men who have sex with men are more likely to have unprotected sexwith seronegative and unknown serostatus partners (and makes no reference to "others in their own cultures", nor to any homosexuals outside the US.)

Article says: In 2006, 62% of American males with AIDS got it through sexual contact with other men. This compares to 13% of American males who get AIDS from sexual contact with a female who is known to have, or is at high risk for, HIV infection.

Few things - the 62% is of American male adults or adolescents (small issue, I realise). But the article is also about HIV/AIDS, not just AIDS. Also, the data takes into account those diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, and men who have sex with men may be more likely to check if they have HIV than men who have high-risk heterosexual sex. So the data may not, actually, show that 62% of American adult males with HIV/AIDS got it through sex with men, but that 62% of American adult males who know they have HIV got it through sex with men.

Article says: Women who have sex with women are more likely to have ... higher prevalence of BV, hepatitis C, and HIV risk behaviours.

Firstly, the source's data is almost ten years old at best (some data is over 17 years old), and so it seems misleading to say that this is what currently is the case. Also, while the source does state that women who have sex with women are more prone to Hep C and HIV risk behaviours, the former is put down to women who have sex with women being more prone to use injective drugs, and does not conlcude (as I think the article implies) that it comes about because of lesbian sex. The HIV risk behaviours are, it seems, injecting drugs, sexual contact with those who inject drugs, and sexual contact with men who have sex with men - again, not a direct result of lesbian sex as the article seems to imply. Darimoma (talk) 09:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for checking up on this in detail. The problem of sources with this article is ongoing. Many (maybe most!) of the people who quote statistics on homosexuality do so to promote either a pro- or anti-gay agenda. It's very, very easy for plausible-sounding quotes to introduce bias. Dybryd (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The table from CDC reads "Estimated numbers of persons living with HIV/AIDS", not the estimated number of diagnosis. The note specifically states "These numbers do not represent reported case counts. Rather, these numbers are point estimates, which result from adjustments of reported case counts." The assumption that MSM might be more likely to report HIV was not mentioned in the article, so I didn't report it.

Most of the other problems resulted from simply trying to brief. I've added them in, but I think it cluters the article. The conclusion from Receipt of Prevention Services said "men who have sex with men were especially unlikely to receive these services even though they were more likely to report unprotected sexual intercourse with seronegative and unknown serostatus casual partners," which is why I wrote what I wrote. I have added that the results were from a survey of HIV infected men, though the conclusion seemed to apply to all MSMs. In regard to women, I still think HIV risk behaviors are important. This article isn't about gay sex, but all aspects of homosexuality. I have tried to be more specific on what those HIV risk behaviors are. I do not think a paper published in 2000 is too old. Some of the other problems arised from edits after I had placed it on the page.

I have tried to best represent the information available. I'm neither anti-gay nor pro-gay. If you feel I have misrepresented something, feel free to make corrections. Adding all these things sure makes it long. Can you think of a more concise way to represent this information? Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The CDC table - yeah, actually, I'm wrong there. It is people living with HIV/AIDS.

But with regards to the Receipt of Prevention Services report - I think the conclusion is unclear as to whether it applies to HIV-positive MSM or MSM in general. But, even if it was intended to refer to MSM in general, the evidence is solely taken from HIV-positive people (not just men), and so that conclusion is not justified. I think, as the conclusion is unclear, and as the evidence is only taken from HIV-positives, it should be changed (perhaps to something like: "A comparison study found that, of HIV-positive individuals, men who have sex with men were especially unlikely to receive HIV preventative services even though they were more likely to report unprotected sexual intercourse with seronegative and unknown serostatus casual partners."

The paper published in 2000, although it was published in 2000, only uses data from 1991-1998. I do think that data from that long ago, when it's about social trends such as injective drug-taking and WSWs having sex with MSMs, which may well have changed even in the last 5 years, let alone the last 10-17, is too old. If it's kept in, I think it really ought to have a mention of the age of the data. That sentence also mentions BV twice.

While the article is on homosexuality, not just on gay sex, the section that sentence on WSWs is in, is on gay sex (or rather "Sexual practices" and "AIDS and STDs"). It still sounds like the prevalence of hep C is due to lesbian sex. It seems to me that "AIDS and STDs" would be better changed to something like "Health issues", and the WSW sentence changed to something like: "Women who have sex with women are more likely to have bacterial vaginosis,[140][141] vulvovaginal candidiasis[142], and have a higher prevalence of injecting drugs (a risk behaviour for hepatitis C and HIV), as well as sexual contact with those who inject drugs, and sexual contact with men who have sex with men (both risk behaviours for HIV)." If it's left in.

I'm sorry I'm not editing the article myself - I've not edited much on wikipedia yet, and so I don't have access to the editing page. Darimoma (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on getting the main guts of this information onto the Men who have sex with men and Women who have sex with women page. I think it would be easier to summarize the information and have only the best sources once we have good supporting articles there. Joshuajohanson (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The new bit on sexual practices still uses dodgy sources. The source given to back up the claim that homosexuals have more sexual partners is from an 18-year-old study. The source given to back up the claim that homosexual relationships tend to be brief and open uses a 24-year-old study to back up the open bit, and a bit of googling the study backing up the brief bit turned up [this article], which analyses the study, pointing out that no over-30-year-olds were included in the last 2-3 years, no exclusive homosexuals (i.e. gay men with fewer than 2 partners in 6 months) were ever included in the study, and for almost three years, HIV-negative men were excluded from the study. Moreover, neither of these two sources says anything about WSWs.

Unless someone thinks I'm being overly harsh on this, or considerably better sources can be given, I'd like to remove this sentence from the article by this time tomorrow. Darimoma (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't believe everything you read on a pro-gay blog. The study was published in May 2003[82] and the abstract says "Currently, 86% (range 74-90%) of new HIV infections occur within steady partnerships." not 24 years ago. Besides, Washington Post goes over several studies, not just that one. The 18 year old study does talk about WSW. "Women with female sexual partners had an average of 10.1 partners while women with only male partners had an average of 2.2 partners" I got rid of the numbers, so that the article only states that MSM and WSW have more partners than average. Do you think in 18 years it is going to go from 4 to 5 times as many partners all the way down to not even having more partners than average? Besides, the other sources make clear that (for MSM) the high number of partners is one of the things contributing to the high STD infection rate. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The aidsonline.com study isn't the one I'm claiming to be 24 years old; I'm saying that it doesn't give evidence that homosexual relationships are in general brief.

The Washington Times article mentions the Dutch study, a study on heterosexual marriage, and a book from 24 years ago. The Dutch study, according to the (granted, biased) pro-gay blog, only includes male homosexuals who had more than one partner within six months. The study on heterosexual marriage makes no reference (at least in the WT article) to gay relationships being brief or open. And the book from 24 years ago is from 24 years ago.

If the 18-year-old study does mention WSW, it should be included in the reference at the bottom of the article. Or, better yet, a link to the study. I also think, if we are going to use an 18-year-old study, it should be made obvious in the article that the data is that old.

The sources that refer to multiple partners as a leading cause of STD infection in MSM only claim that STD-infected MSM have a greater number of partners, and not that this is true of MSM in general.

On the subject of old data - do I think that in the last 18 years the number of sexual partners for homosexuals has gone down from 4-5 times as many as heterosexuals to the same? I can't say. However, what I can say is that it is not reasonable to claim that MSM or WSW currently have more sexual partners based on evidence from 18-24 years ago. Darimoma (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

How did the Washington Times thing sneak in? The Times is not a quality source to cite in an encyclopedia article. Rivertorch (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Less biased source on the sample of the Dutch study: ACS, the actual source of the data, with info on their methods of collecting data. It states, "Included were asymptomatic homosexual men aged 18-65 with at least two sexual partners in the six months prior to intake." The Dutch study can't be used as a reliable source for backing up homosexual promiscuity, as its data is inherently biased towards promiscuity. Darimoma (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So we're citing an unreliable source which is reporting on a study whose methodology doesn't support the statement in the first place? Good catch. Rivertorch (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed the Dutch study/Washington Times source, and the statement it backed up (that homosexual relationships tend to be open and brief). I've also changed the subtitle of the "AIDS and STDs" section to "AIDS, STDs and other health issues", for a couple of reasons - A) it makes more sense to have the info on WSWs' non-sexual health risks under this title, and B) if allows for mental health issues to be dealt with too. Darimoma (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction: having older brothers leads to higher/lower probabilities of homosexuality, according to two different sections of this article

In Section "Fraternal birth order":

There is evidence from numerous studies that homosexual men tend to have more older brothers than do heterosexual men, known as the "fraternal birth order effect."[123] One reported that each older brother increases the odds of being gay by 33%.

In Section "Environment": Having an older brother decreases the rate of homosexuality. Bearman explains that an older brother establishes gendersocializing mechanisms for the younger brother to follow, which allows him to compensate for unisex treatment.[125] 88.218.80.131 (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The entire "Environment" section is quite dubious anyway... the cited "sources" and research are not in line with overwhelming accepted science. The source to a "Comprehensive Psychiatry" journal even says it provides highly divergent viewpoints. This whole section should either be eliminated or reduced with an appropriate disclaimer such as in the "pathological" section.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, there is no evidence whatsoever to support this "maternal immune hypothesis" bullshit. I know I put such a disclaimer in the text, but I don't think it has any place in this article if there is no scientific study to support it. Propose removing entire second paragraph, except for the sentence

Interestingly, this relation seems to hold only for right-handed males.[126] There has been no observed equivalent for women.

which can be inserted into the middle of the 1st paragraph. Hypotheticals can be discussed on the fraternal birth order page itself.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 06:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That statement from the Bearman study only applies to men with a female twin. The Comprehensive Psychiatry journal is in line with accepted science. Every major medical organization points to environmental factors in combination with biological factors. Joshuajohanson (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that environmental factors don't exist. I'm saying that the conjectures about over-involved father, mother, maladjustment pathologies, etc. in this specific citation don't match with accepted science. This falls under WP:QS. "Every major medical organization" probably doesn't have an opinion on origins of human sexuality, but if you have references, please bring them to this page.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The Comprehensive Psychiatry journal doesn't talk about over-involved father, mother, maladjustment pathologies, etc. It talks about "paternal protection and maternal care" and "paternal attachment, introversion, and neurotic characteristics." I think parents play a huge role in the environment you grow up in. The main pages says that "sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences." What environmental influences are those if they aren't the parents? The biology and sexual orientation page states "Many [scientists] think that nature and nurture both play complex roles." The journal seems to be inline with what science is saying. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Your first sentence is six of one, half-dozen of the other. Let's not get caught up on semantics. Your following sentences are simply restating what you said in your previous post, with which I said I agree, this is what accepted science says. However, despite the fact that the environment hypothesis is easily citable, and possibly "accepted science", the "paternal..." or however you want to call it is certainly NOT in line with accepted mainstream research. Like I said (now I'm restating), even the journal itself states: "for clinicians and investigators of markedly divergent concepts, methods and orientations." No matter your POV, it's not really appropriate to include single studies which have not held up to peer review and repetition. As far environment, this can include in-utero conditions, what the child is fed, if he's breast-fed, his peers at school, his siblings, extra-curricular activities... innumerable things besides just parental personalities.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I never said environment was JUST parental personalities. You say "it is certainly NOT in line with accepted mainstream research". Why do you say that? Environmental influences is one of the things that determines sexual orientation, apart from hormonal influences such as in-utero conditions. You said it hasn't been held up to peer review and repetition. It was printed in a peer-reviewed journal and has been repeated by numerous studiesstudies. I don't know where you are coming from. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It is an unforunate mess, from an encyclopedia's point of view. The science has lots of good evidence for a biological basis of male sexual orientation, no good evidence for a non-biological basis for male sexual orientation, and some mediocre evidence for both influences on female sexual orientation. So, although it is true that major professional organizations have statements saying that sexual orientation is a mix, they are really talking about sexual orientation broadly (both male and female), rather than making more precise and accurate statements. There is even some very good (but new) evidence that sexual orientation in females is organized entirely differently from sexual orientation in males.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

People seem to have different ideas about what does and does not count as good evidence. If you're saying that the evidence available thus far shows that male sexual orientation is inborn and not affected by post-natal factors, I totally disagree. The article has to present such controversies neutrally. Skoojal (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you certainly seem to be saying that Joshua. I can keep repeating myself, but I don't know if it will help. Environment is absolutely an accepted factor. The SPECIFIC findings of the PARENT/CHILD relationships of THIS article in question are not generally accepted. The environmental factors are so complex that they are very difficult to ferret out, and this is just one hypothesis, one study, one culture. In fact, other since-debunked studies would actually conflict quite markedly with this one (they used to say a domineering mother and absent father were causes for homosexuality, which we now know not to be true). Kudos to Marion's statement which surmises more eloquently what I just said.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You keep saying these findings aren't generally accepted. I see no evidence of that. They were published in a peer-reviewed journal. Did anyone write anything even questioning any of the conclusions of the study? It seems perfectly aligned with modern science. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's really hilarious if you think one paper published in a journal makes it science gospel. Believe me, I worked in research... it's highly flawed, that's why the scientific community only gives credence to experiments which are reliably reproduced. "Peer-reviewed" means not only looking critically at the original study, but scrutinizing it through repetition. I don't know if anyone wrote a letter to the editor regarding this article, or if anyone even paid that much attention to it to even have that cross his mind. Just because the study showed up in a journal does not by any means make it "perfectly aligned with modern science." If that were the case, we would never have drug recalls or changes in acceptable safety thresholds of environmental pollutants. "Oh we studied that once, we don't need to ever look at it again."Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's fine that we have studies that disagree. The studies did in fact get contrasting results. But the against-the-grain study from Bearman gets a heck of a lot more space in this article than it seems to have gotten in the scientific press. There may be a question of undue weight in featuring it in this brief summary of research.

An overview article like this one should present consensus views and most-typical examples -- with minority views and exceptional or unclear data going in the more detailed subtopic articles like Biology and sexual orientation.

Dybryd (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see evidence that it is against-the-grain or not accepted by science. Also, it doesn't belong on the Biology and sexual orientation page, and there isn't a Environment and sexual orientation. Joshuajohanson (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, Joshua, I don't know how many different ways I can explain to you that one paper does not scientific dogma make. Do you understand how the scientific method works? If not, this could be the source of our inability to communicate with you regarding undue weight in an article.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sidebars

The current appearance of this article is appalling. It is extremely low quality. Having those huge sidebars to the right of the text is ridiculous! They should be deleted, or moved somewhere where they are not so intrusive. Skoojal (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now done this - they were useless, and cluttered the article. Skoojal (talk) 10:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible schedule of organization

I've been away from the happenings of the article for a few days. One like this tends to get away in that time. However, I read Geometry guy's comments, and I've worked with him before. He's usually right. So I think the editors who are going to work on this, even the armchair quarterbacks on the talk page, should make some decisions.

Right now the article is somewhat of a frenzied free-for-all of individual editors shoring up information, adding, restructuring parts, and the ensuing arguments about those changes, while the article in general changes very little. I think the section above, asking editors to check here when they add sources is a step in the right direction. However, I also think it is premature in light of the large changes that need to be made. I hope what we can do is work together, regardless of vantage point, and follow somewhat of a schedule.

Step 1: Big changes (one week)

1. Make cuts of information to pare the article down, using Geometry guy's suggestions.
2. Merge sections and restructure them to condense it.
3. Decide—and this will probably be the hardest to do in short time—what this article will cover, and when information will be directed to satellite articles.

Step 2: Medium sized changes (few days)

1. Rewrite the lead to cover the structure of the article.
2. Make an effort to globalize the information, where possible.

Step 3: Minor changes that add up to major ones (two weeks)

1. Discuss sections and prose that are POV, then work on language that will satisfy the NPOV policies.
2. Copy edit mercilessly, streamline language throughout, adhering to the MOS.

I think the idea of writing it back here or on a Homosexuality/Sandbox space is a good one. In fact, we can copy the article into a sandbox back here and cut it apart with murderous glee, but still have the "original" in the mainspace to refer to if we regret cutting something. What seems POV, extraneous, poorly written, or out of place can be marked with the appropriate tags. That way the editors involved can keep track of the changes and know what should be addressed.

I'm not trying to take anything over. So far the editors involved since the article went to GAR have proven good faith. I think if we have common goals and steps we're less likely to be drained from the constant individual changes that don't seem to add up. Every once in a while, opinionated editors get together and something clicks. I hope this can be an example of good faith editors, who clearly don't agree, compromising for the sake of the encyclopedia. I'm willing to work on this with the editors I've seen here recently in the time frame above.

Comments? --Moni3 (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of having a sandbox. Could we get some kind of rough outline before we start cutting and restructuring the page? Joshuajohanson (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I support all of that. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I created a sandbox page called Homosexuality/Sandbox and put on it my proposal for creating a separate page for homosexual orientation. I added several sections that did not currently exist, such as an explanation on how a homosexual orientation relates to other aspects of homosexuality, a section on sexual orientation and psychology, which took out the sections on Malleability of homosexuality, Pathological model of homosexuality, and Coming out, as well as the whole Sexual orientation and the law and Theories of causality section. I also took sections from the sexual orientation page which were specific a homosexual orientation, such as Queer theory and Homosexuality and transgender. I think these sections are unique enough to a homosexual orientation and is enough information to make an interesting, informative article. It also gives homosexual orientation room to grow, because I believe it is an important topic in an of itself. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is really just a brief message to say I support the approach initiated above. I'm watchlisting this and will help if I can, but I think this is best left to content experts, which I am not. In particular, I see some disagreement above over the need for a separate homosexual orientation article, and don't want my comments to skew the discussion, even if consensus seems to line up that way. Please interpret all my suggestions in the light of your expertise, Wikipedia policies, and what reliable sources say. One final request: Sandboxes in article space are discouraged (as they count as separate articles), so I suggest moving Homosexuality/Sandbox to Talk:Homosexuality/Sandbox. Geometry guy 21:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I really agree with the idea of splitting the article into sub-articles, one for the orientation and the other for sexual behaviour. That will eliminate a great deal of the headaches we've all been having for quite some time given the inherent broadness of the article's current purview. I would suggest, however, that the main article Homosexuality be made into a disambiguation page which redirects to the articles. I don't think it would be appropriate to simply redirect homosexuality to an article about sexual orientation, given that it would misleadingly suggest that homosexuality=sexual orientation. Also, I don't really understand why we wouldn't simply link in that disambiguation page directly to the existing Sexual orientation article instead of creating an entirely new Homosexual orientation page. Just some thoughts..--Agnaramasi (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Simply linking a disambiguation page to Sexual orientation and putting all the homosexual orientation content there would be problematic for at least two reasons. First, it would make the Sexual orientation too long. More importantly, it would mean that homosexual attraction and behavior would get their own article, while orientation wouldn't, which would be illogical, since orientation is an essential part of the subject. Any proposed split is going to be extremely difficult because attraction, behavior, and orientation cannot be neatly cleaved into separate parts; they're intertwined. Rivertorch (talk) 05:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

We already have an article on same-sex attraction, same-sex relationships and a proposed article on homosexual orientation in Talk:Homosexuality/Sandbox. The articles don't pretend to be unrelated to the other topics, and there is an explanation of how everything is related in those individual pages. The main homosexuality page, then will have brief paragraphs explaining homosexual orientation, same-sex attraction, and same-sex relationships with links to the appropriate articles. In addition, it will include sections that include a lot of overlap, such as the politics, prejudice, religious views, as well as homosexuality in animals. I have not had any feedback on the homosexual orientation article in the sandbox. I felt as if I addressed several of the concerns. I think it has enough information in there even if the Theories of Causality were sent off to a separate section. In any case, even if this is difficult, it still needs to be done because this article needs to be split one way or another. Simply saying it is too difficult is not good enough to keep its GA status. Joshuajohanson (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look at the sandbox, and I think that it takes this suite of articles in a good direction. First, I should emphasise that the triple of "same-sex attraction", "same-sex relationship" and "homosexual orientation" cannot reduce this article ("Homosexuality") to a disambiguation page. Where does the history section go, for example? In fact the proposal handles the history very well, because the proposed "homosexual orientation" article deals with the development of the concept in psychology, leaving this article to deal with the history of homosexual behaviour. In concert with his above comment, it seems to me that Joshuajohanson's concept will work well.

Here's some feedback on the current sandbox. The "Coming out" section needs some reworking to place it in an "orientation" context rather than a "feel attracted to" context. In the "Theories of causality" section, I continue to believe that it is unhelpful to make a high level delineation between biological and non-biological explanations. (What does "non-biological" mean anyway? We're not talking about washing powder here!) Finally, the "Social construct" section is a good move, but what is really needed, I think, is a "Sociology" of homosexual orientation. This could also accommodate "Coming out" and "Homophobia", and analysis of these issues. Geometry guy 21:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate what you had to say and the feedback on the sand box page. I've made the changes you have suggested. Once it gets pushed live, I think it will be easier to discuss how the homosexuality article will be organized. We can decide what can be removed completely, what will be left and what we will summarize. If there are no more comments or objections, I will go ahead and create the homosexual orientation and turn the sandbox page into the sand box for the new organization for the homosexuality page. We will use that to proposed a way to get rid of all of the redundant information between the homosexuality page and the homosexual orientation and same-sex relationship pages. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've now delisted this article as a GA, but I hope this doesn't discourage efforts to improve it again. The orientation spinout has helped a lot, and it may be easier to find a way forward now. I myself would really like to fix the lead/overview issue, but that can't be done without addressing many of the other remaining problems. Geometry guy 19:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Article on science of (alleged) gay/pedophilia association

I have added a relevant article on that topic. I thought it appropriate to point out that I am also the author of that article. Although the article is published in a newsletter, I have made it available on the web and cited the web-source for easier download.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 14:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

GA reassessment

This article is currently listed as a GA, but there are several problems with it. Here are some things to fix:

• There are entire sections and paragraphs with few to no citations.
• The lead defines homosexuality more than it summarizes the main points of the article, which is the purpose of the lead. See WP:LEAD.
• Some of the citations are misplaced. They need to be after punctuation with no space between the punctuation and the number.
• The issues brought up in the cleanup tags (worldview or citations needed) need to be addressed.
• Some of the websites used as references need to be formatted with Template:cite web.
• The book sources used in the references need page numbers.

I'll give the editors of this article a week to address these issues, at which time I may refer the article to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Good luck, and happy editing! Nikki311 19:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the misplaced citations. (I think I caught them all. Context demands that citation 114 appear before the ellipsis.) A thorough copyedit—or two or three—is also indicated; I saw some other issues. Can we really rewrite the lead in one week(!)? Rivertorch (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I find that the easiest way to rewrite the lead is to include one sentence from every first level header. I don't mind helping, if need be. Nikki311 02:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Another issue I would like to bring up for GA reassessment is the lack of information on HIV and other STDs. Only a brief mention is given in the political section, while this seems to have played a major contribution to bringing homosexuality to the mainstream and other changes in the gay culture. There is a large number of homosexuals who are struggle from this dreaded disease, and ignoring it doesn't help their cause. Joshuajohanson (talk) 05:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and also this article lacks much depth in religious views on homosexuality (such as in the Biblical Book of Leviticus and in the Koran and wherever). Additionally, the section on Mideast/South/Central Asia history is totally unsourced, even containing those dreaded "citation needed" tags! Furthermore, "sexual orientation and the law" section is limited to an Americentric view. Although I live in the U.S. I'd like editors to add how other countries approach that subject. Ditto with the section "parenting". And finally, I think this article is skewed in favor of homosexuality as it lacks much information about the numerous anti-gay organizations in the world. I'm sorry if i'm being homophobic right there, but that's the spirit of NPOV. Of course once these problems (and maybe some others) are resolved then this article can be GA again. But for now I motion to delist this article please.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a complete separate article about Religion and homosexuality, which is linked from the corresponding section in this article. It was split out so that the topic could be given more in-depth discussion than is appropriate in an encyclopedic summary of homosexuality. FCYTravis (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment about the lead... it does need work per WP:LEAD, but WP:LEAD notwithstanding, it is standard practice in encyclopedic-like treatments of homosexuality to begin with the information contained in the first three paragraphs, and I feel strongly that they should stay, even if they are longer relative to the other content in the lead. Fireplace (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Andrewlp1991's comment above, homophobia has nothing whatsoever to do with "the spirit of NPOV". Neither does racism, sexism, or any other form of prejudice. Regarding the alleged lack of info on anti-gay organizations, the fact that there is organized bigotry in the world doesn't need to be noted in detail in every potentially relevant article. Rivertorch (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Anti-gay isn't the right word. Many of these organizations have started to reach out to gays while still denouncing gay sex. Pro-family might be the better choice. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What does reaching out to gays but denouncing gay sex mean? Is that the old and tired "hate the sin, love the sinner"? That's still anti-gay. Gay people aren't that gay without the sex, which is the focus of most anti-gay groups. --Moni3 (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That is, if you'll pardon my instrusion, is an ignorant slander. Gay sex creates problems (just read the rest of the article) which attracts the genuine concern of many people, gay and otherwise. Gay people who abstain from gay sex may be interested in survival. It's time for gays-with-an-agenda to stop throwing this bollocks about. Others might get the impression that you're just being sh*t disturbers. Grow up! Bushcutter (talk) 06:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not the place for euphemisms. "Pro-family" is utterly bereft of meaning in most cases and certainly should not be used in an encyclopedia article to cloak the intentions of political organizations who seek to dehumanize and discriminate against groups of human beings. Gay people have families, too, after all. Moni is correct about ""hate the sin, love the sinner": in practice, that phrase can be translated as "We tolerate you as long as you stay in your place, i.e., invisible". Rivertorch (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And who says all gays have gay sex? Love the sinner may not even apply in many cases. Anyhow, it isn't for us Wikipedians to make those types of decisions. We simply report their position and then let the facts speak for themselves. Excluding them because we disagree with them is not acceptable for a GA level article. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me this has little to do with personal disagreements and everything to do with creating a clearly-written, neutral article. You cite section 3.3 of WP:NPOV—let the facts speak for themselves—but what are the facts, anyway? Reporting a political organization's position does not necessarily equate with presenting its stated position as fact. Calling political organizations with anti-gay agendas "pro-family" makes about as much sense as calling the Nazi Party of the 1930s "pro-Germany"; it is euphemistic and obfuscatory, and it carries the deeply offensive implication that there is something "anti-family" about gay people. To answer your question, nobody here, to my knowledge, said or even implied that "all gays have gay sex" any more than anyone said that all straights have straight sex, so it's unclear what your point is. I agree with you that excluding facts because we disagree with them is not acceptable for a GA-level article—assuming they're verifiably facts, relevant to the subject at hand, and can be incorporated into the article in a structured, logical way. Actually, I'd go further: excluding them is not acceptable for any article. What does it mean to disagree with a fact, anyway? Rivertorch (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well then let's include the facts. Let's include in the political section some opposition to gay rights movements. Let's include in the religious section that these religions say they are reaching out to gays. Let's present the history sections fairly and not shade the truth to make it seem like every culture in the existence of the world has always accepted gay relationships. Let's talk openly about AIDS and some other negative consequences of gay sex. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that many stories should be told about cultural and historical values, ones that value homosexuality, ones that take no notice of it any different than heterosexuality, and those that condemn it with force. However, I still think you need to clarify what "reaching out to gays" means. Does that mean accepting them as they are and welcoming them as the United Church of Christ, Society of Friends, and Metropolitan Community Church does, or does that mean inviting them in to tell them the beauty of God's word, which also includes gentle admonishments to stop having sex and deny who they are? --Moni3 (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In order to stop having sex, they need to be having sex. Again I ask, who says gays have gay sex? Also, I've never seen any church teach that gays need to deny anything. Many gays live either a celibate or heterosexual lifestyle and are happy with their church which teaches against gay sex. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, understood that there are as many types of sexualities as there are people and labels are deficient. However, you didn't answer the request to clarify what "reaching out to gays" means. --Moni3 (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

First, acknowledge their existence, express love for them, speak positively about them, teach there is no sin in the orientation, dispel myths about them, set up groups and program that help them accomplish their goals, train clergy on how to minister to them compassionately. Stuff like that. All that can be done without accepting sex outside of a heterosexual marriage. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(reset) So, and I am genuinely curious, how would the members of such an outreach program react to two men or two women holding hands during Bible Study, or kissing each other after taking communion? Not anything hot or heavy, just on the mouth pecking? --Moni3 (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe that this is such a troublesome question. "Reaching out" to someone means just that. A doctor "reaches out" to a sick person. A teacher "reaches out" to a student. A musician "reaches out" to the audience. if they don't, they're ignoring the other person. It doesn't matter (except in the minds of some troublesome types) if the perwson being reached out to is gay or otherwise - unless someone has an agenda. As for kissing after communion, NOBODY with any common sense kisses after communion! Get a grip - you're supposed to be learning something, not trading saliva! Please stop trying to bring stupid agendas into an encyclopedic article! Bushcutter (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that depends on the congregation. I know Melissa Fryrear goes around the country and shares her story in the Love Won Out conference of showing up at a conservative Christian congregation with her girlfriend and being warmly accepted. Of course, Love Won Out is probably more accepting of that type of stuff than a regular conservative church. I would imagine that there are several extremely conservative churches that are chalk full of homophobes that wouldn't take too kindly to that. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Also I'm looking elsewhere on the talk page and I think that the stability for this article is slipping, in addition to claims of POV disputes within sections. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Joshua, two different paragraphs in the article discuss AIDS. Work needs to be done there because the context isn't well defined and the information provided is skimpy. But suggestions such as "Let's talk openly about AIDS and some other negative consequences of gay sex" are really not constructive at all. If we're going for increased factuality in the article, we probably should try to not to spout glaring factual errors on the talk page, either. And no matter how you slice it, AIDS is not a consequence of gay sex. For the record, AIDS is a complex medical syndrome associated with a long-term immune deficiency, which scientific consensus has affirmed is a consequence of HIV infection, which is communicated by a transfer of some types of bodily fluids. The majority of HIV infections worldwide, and a sizable minority of them in the developed world, are not associated with same-sex intercourse. I don't know—and at this point am frankly afraid to hear—the "other negative consequences of gay sex" to which you refer, but I think you'll find, if you look into it, that negative consequences can and do result from lots of forms of sex, regardless of the gender or genders of the participants. In any case, this article isn't about sex or disease or negative consequence, it's about homosexuality, and we should take care not to introduce too much tangential information into an already long article.

One other point. It may well be true that certain religious bodies are beginning to take small steps away from previously hate-based attitudes toward gay people. If this can be verified through a reliable source, and the number is sizable enough to indicate a trend, then it probably merits a brief mention in the article. It's important we not overstate the situation, however; the absence of open hostility isn't the same thing as acceptance, after all, and the religious bodies in question are holding gay members to a vastly different standard than straight members. Rivertorch (talk) 06:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Argh, that "pro-family" comment was absolutely stomach-turning. I'm gay and I'm very pro-family, as are all my family members who are totally accepting of me. And by accepting, I mean dude sex and all. A church who teaches gay people that the most intimate and spiritual expression of their love is a sin is not accepting them nor helping them achieve their goals. We are getting way off-topic... I think Joshua represents a substantial opinion of the U.S. populace, but this is supposed to be NPOV and also not strictly U.S. Let's direct this info to the respective ancillary pages. Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Rivertorch, you said this article isn't about sex. The lead says "Homosexuality refers to sexual behavior with or attraction to people of the same sex." Should the lead be changed so it isn't saying this article is about sexual behavior? I also don't see why you have to approve of same-sex relationships in order to be loving and accepting towards gays. How many gays actually have gay sex anyway? Joshuajohanson (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's hard for a man to have vaginal sex with another man, isn't it? Denouncing the homosexual act--let's say, two men sodomising each other in turn--is and isn't much different than denouncing homosexuality as a state, whereas replacement of a man in the woman's position could essentially sum up the vanilla homosexual relationship. The church is notorious for persecuting homosexuals for their actions and their very existence, and contributing towards popular opinion that America needs special rights (read, less rights) for them even though they should have rights in the first place, and it's notorious for the rather weak position of 'accepting' gays but only if they're either celibate or deign to sleep with a woman, which somehow seems infinitely more unhealthy than following one's natural urges to find a mate, even if mating itself isn't possible. The church is nowhere near neutral on its stance on homosexuality, and even its more tender 'gay-to-straight camps' cast a negative view based on their book. Practically, it's viewed by the church as a sin, a sickness, something to be changed, even though large medical opinion agrees a healthy person is a healthy person and an unhealthy person is not, regardless of orientation. 71.228.195.19 (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Homsexuality and sodomy are two different topics. The focus on the sex act distracts from the discussion. Homosexuality is not about one man deciding to desire to have anal sex with another man. Homesexuals want to life life, love, associate with whom they choose and have the freedom to be whom they choose. They want to do that, like we all do, in the company of other people that they love, and love them. Some heterosexuals, and some homosexuals desire long term monogamous relationships (others are polyamorous, or prefer no relationships). Desiring to have a long term relationship with another person is part of being human. For a large part of a persons life, a majority of their life, physical sex plays but a very small part. Heterosexual or Homosexual, the primary need is for love and companionship, not to have some type of intercourse as often as possible. For people and institutions who persecute homosexuals, it keeps coming back to focusing on one sexual act, rather than love, kindness and compassion for anothr human being and the difficulties of life that all humanity faces. Atom (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Causes

Problems w/ benjeboi's edits:

1) Implies every reason besides genetics and environment is minor.

2) Implies fraternal birth order and prenatal hormones, etc are not environmental.

3) Fraternal bits is fringe? Do not revert b4 you understand the material you are reverting.

4) Its better when everything is linked on the main page since everything is so fragmented.

5) Possibly in combination is also misleading cause not 1 single mainstream organization says its one or the other. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Every reason is either genetics and/or environmental; the other theories are subsets of the former and fraternal birth order and sexual orientation is particularly unhelpful to present as anything but a disputed theory. It may be true but Blanchards work is routinely propagated on Wikipedia and we should not be a part of it. Let that article make a case that is compelling enough to warrant it's inclusion here. Certainly unacceptable for the lede. If it's to be included let's find a NPOV to do so without putting undue weight on it. And i completely disagree that 5 section header "go here" links are helpful. I think it's actually harmful and clutters the section. The lede to fraternal birth order and sexual orientation is a hint that we should be careful giving much weight to this - A correlation between fraternal birth order and sexual orientation has been suggested by recent research. This might not be fringe but it's surely not mainstream either. Once that article improves to show it's a mainstream concept then we probably should include it. -- Banjeboi 03:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

When you cut the lead, it doesnt make sense. 1st reason is conditional on the 2nd. And it isnt just Blanchard. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole lede is a bit of a mess IMHO and will need to be cleaned-up. This is bu one IMHO, minor issue. -- Banjeboi 07:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I give up. There are many papers on this. This is also part of "hormonal" in 'The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that "sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences."'. I have no clue why u think this is fringe but I had enough of your edit wars. Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not an edit war. The fraternal birth order and sexual orientation article states it is not mainstream. Looking at the sources it's also a bit Blanchard-heavy which to me is a red-flag. The Pubmed linked source seems to capture the spirit of things a bit ....

“ The lack of relationship between the strength of the effect and degree of homosexual feelings in the men and women suggests the influence of birth order on homosexual feelings was not due to a biological, but a social process in the subjects studied. ”

That seems to directly contradict the theory. How do you suggest we include it to accurately represent this? -- Banjeboi 03:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

We could say something like: Studies have been done to show correlations between fraternal birth order and sexual orientation. However, the complexity of confounding factors have suggested this correlation was not necessarily biological but was possibly a social process in the subjects studied. Does that sound like the accurate summary which can include the data from the potential fringes while sticking to the supposedly mainstream viewpoint all at once? ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 03:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That seems to directly contradict the theory? That?

"Studies of the 2-3% of persons who identify as homosexual found men but not women had more older brothers than persons who identify as heterosexual. The present study investigated the birth order in the approximately 20% of men and women who anonymously report some homosexual feelings, few of whom identify as homosexual." [83] Phoenix of9 (talk) 04:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm totally ignorant about how much due weight to give to various academic works on psychiatry or sexology, but is that abstract on haworthpress.com giving us a reliable source to show the fraternal birth order is a correlation, or is it causation? I am a layperson with no specialist understanding of which experts are to be believed with which amounts of weightiness. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 04:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It isnt about fraternal birth order among gay men. Phoenix of9 (talk) 04:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh goodness, now that i've seen your newest edits, i understand much better; i am fuzzyheaded and will come back to this on a different day. Sometimes when the same paragraphs have scrolled past my eyebrows too many days in a row, i get all blurrr. Thanks for those good additions today. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 04:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Fraternal birth order

Kudos to everyone for the hard work so far on the article. I have some concern over the removal of material—fully sourced to peer-reviewed journals—relating to fraternal birth order. Some discussion here is probably appropriate before it is summarily axed. Rivertorch (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we must include some mention of Fraternal Birth Order as part of some theories, because it is so widely mentioned in recent years. But we must be careful to include this in such a way as to avoid the appearance of endorsing a theory as though it were proven (when it's highly speculative), and we must certainly mention that these studies have very huge confounding factors. Due to the unproven and speculative nature of Fraternal Birth Order as a factor, i don't think it belongs in the lede paragraphs, i think it belongs in the appropriate subsections instead. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 04:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No argument from this quarter. Anything that's speculative should be identified as such, although the speculativeness also should be sourced. Rivertorch (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I've formatted these sections to keep the discussion together. I'm not convinced it needs to stay or go but what we had seemed flawed so it should be worked out what we can state clearly and factually with due weight. The only link I was able to access through the Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation article seems to suggest that the effect had more to do with socialing aspects of having more older brothers than any biological factor. Had I even never heard of Blanchard I would readily accept a lot of what our article states. Unfortunately a lot of Blanchard's research is, shall we say - disputed. Fraternal birth order theories are new and like the pubmed article above points out, many follow-up articles disavow all the previous results with a net zero gain. So then we're simply stating theory exists which is probably not the best information here. I'm very concerned we don't aid and abet promulgating propaganda of Blanchard et al. See this at work at Ray_Blanchard#Fraternal_birth_order_effect; that s a BLP, no less. Where does this body of research seem to originate? Why by studying homosexual pedophiles of course![84] I'll be more swayed when researchers independent of Blanchard et al create original studies above reproach the arrive at the same results. We all would love to know the million dollar answer what causes gayness but the fraternal birth order bits seem to be widely propogated rather than widely proven. We should write carefullt and cautiously -- Banjeboi 14:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Bogaert's study Phoenix of9 (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Bogaert seems to have close connection with Blanchard and has co-authored a few papers with them. [85] They might not be as independent as we would want to support some content. -- Banjeboi 23:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: instead of our deciding that the research is flawed, shouldn't we find a reliable source that says that the research is flawed? That it's widely propagated is a valid enough reason to include it, along with appropriate sourced caveats, since that might dissuade casual editors of the future from inserting it without caveats. Rivertorch (talk) 06:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm loathe to include it or Handedness and sexual orientation as they're both rather speculative and messy. At best "the jury's still out" seems to sum this up. The closest I'm coming up with is something akin to research continues as these are under the umbrella of biology and sexual orientation which is well-written and watched over. Instead of a list of wobbly theories accompanied by explanantion they are disputed, etc. I'm still leaning that leaving them out and vaguely referencing that "other" theories exist and sending readers to the two main articles is better service. -- Banjeboi 10:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I basically agree with you. I don't have any familiarity with college level textbooks on queer studies nor sexology, but if we could see how they organize and index their references to studies, whether biology, sociology, psychology, anthropology, zoology, whichever then we might get a clearer picture of which well-explained parts need the proper due weight versus which theoretical areas are still mainly speculative. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 11:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It's too new and vastly uncharted is part of the general issue - also why i think what we have presently is pretty good. The issue on Wikipedia is a preponderance of Blanchard content, and yes you can read waaaay into what I mean by that. Check out Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory or Homosexual transsexual for instance. They are but the tip of the iceberg and seemingly anything that a Blanchard paper could be made into an article is. If you look at those articles they are simply huge yet these are disputed and contentious subjects with ... committed editors intent on propogating the information in all sorts of places. I'm sure the drama will come here too but for now they have other articles to play on. In any case I'd rather be as neutral and detached as possible so we neither lend credibility where it shouldn't be or disparage a proven scientific finding. I think the jury is still out on this though. -- Banjeboi 13:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You're quite correct. Fortunately, we can easily apply a litmus test of "how much actual scientific study has been done" versus how much speculative philosophy abounds, and our choice of emphasis for due weight can be simply based on the most educational resources whose facts have the most rigorous testing versus those which are notably regarded as fringe ideas with no body of evidence. I see what you mean about the propagation of disputed materials, so my guess is we could look to the textbooks among various curricula in reputable institutions of higher education renowned for their departments of LGBT studies. Sadly, i'm only a layman, i have a fascination with the topics but a lack of specialized expertise. That's why i'm hoping we can get more Peer Review volunteers from among venerated scholars of homosexuality. I feel that way about numerous sub-topics on the Homosexuality/LGBT_project. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 14:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Per Benjiboi's comment, I withdraw my original objection. As long as we link to the articles that discuss the research, we don't need it here at this time. Rivertorch (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)