Template talk:Sexual orientation/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Sexual orientation. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

RfC: are "zoosexuality," "autosexuality," and "pomosexuality" orientations?

Please see proposal sections below

This discussion has been collapsed.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There has been disagreement on whether the terms "zoosexuality" , "autosexuality" and "pomosexuality" should be listed on the template as sexual orientations.

Previous discussion is in the section Template_talk:Sexual_orientation#template_POV_problems above.

Input is also welcome on improving the template in general.

Dybryd (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I recommend we group them together under "sexual preference and orientation", if you don't have a problem with this, i wil go ahead and change it. But i am still waiting for the reason you made that "other" category, you have nost justified that edit, which you called a "compromise" without getting anyones input.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of "zoosexuality" makes my head want to split apart. There are significant political impacts to equating zoophilia with other sexual orientations. I have an apparent lack of opinion about autosexuality (which sounds more like narcissistic personality disorder) or pomosexuality. --Moni3 (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. What do you think the standard for inclusion ought to be? Some possibilities include:

some people self-identify this as an orientation (asexuality)
an academic paper has argued that this is an orientation (zoosexuality)
it is a focus of the main sexual orientation article (hetero-, homo-, bi-)
it is listed as an orientation in a mainstream, authoritative work such as an APA publication (I don't know that anyone has found such a thing, though I would like to)
is is an attraction between sentient and consenting human adults (Moni3's suggestion)
it is experienced as an inescapable attraction (Dev920's suggestion)
...?

Dybryd (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I read what there was in the zoosexuality article. The article isn't in too good a shape, so I can't say if that's the total of what has given cause for it to be included with heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality, but if the APA still considers it a relatively harmless neurosis, then no. It is not on par with these other widely accepted sexual orientations. I think we need to focus on sexual orientations that include attractions between sentient and consenting human adults. --Moni3 (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I would not include autosexual, because I can't see it as an orientation, which to me implies outward attractions. Zoosexual yes, I have read a significant amount of zoophile testimony and they do seem inescapably attracted to animals, so it does seem to me a valid orientation. Pomosexual I would not include because it's a label for people...who...reject ...labels...and my brain hurts. It's a political term which fails to describe anyone's orientation at all, only their attitude towards having it described. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Would you argue for a general standard of inclusion that says "If it's an inescapable attraction, then it's an orientation"? Could we dig up a source for this standard? Dybryd (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Pomosexual is in itself a sexual orientation, defined as an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectionate attraction toward others[2], but refuses to classify ones self with sexual orientation rules, identities, and labels.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Chaps, you opened a request for comments. I have made a comment. No need to be coming at me from both sides, I'm just putting forward my immediate reaction to the question put forth. Yes, I would say your summary, Dybryd, is accurate, but it's just a rule of thumb. Your argument Cooljuno that pomosexual is a valid sexual orientation because pomosexuals are attracted to...something... doesn't really hold up unless that something is defined. Otherwise its not an orientation, it's a label for people who don't want to use them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to come across as brusque. But -- since the question has become controversial, I think we really need criteria we can source. Dybryd (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Pomosexuality's a political activist statement, not an actual orientation; reality is that's like calling yourself a martian but being born in The Bronx. You can say whatever you want, but you are a New Yorker. That one definitely has no place in a template about sexual orientations. Zoosexuality's a POV push in and of itself by people seeking to validate banging sheep, and a 'paraphilia', and Autosexuality sounds like excess Narcissism, listed as a mental disease in the DSM-IV, and thus another 'paraphilia'. As such, none of them ought to be listed in the main template for Sexual orientation, but can be found by reading up on the main links. ThuranX (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So there is no such thing as a pesron who does't calssify their sexual motive.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There is such a person, but they have a sexual motive. Therefore they have a label that can be applied. Refusing to apply one is a political statement, not an orientation. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the terms "zoosexuality" , "autosexuality" and "pomosexuality" should not be listed on the template as sexual orientations. Let's not be ridiculous, please. Certain followers of these "orientations" may be flattered to have them listed, but that is definitely not a good reason for doing so. Conventional usage is to restrict sexual orientation to hetero/homo/and bisexuality, and it's best to stick with it. Skoojal (talk) 06:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You did even say why, you just said no.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I said that it was ridiculous. That's a good enough reason. Aside from that, it has no basis in science. The 'non hetero-homo continuum' part should be removed from the template. Skoojal (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

We removing something because you think it's silly is against Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. And feel free to read up on continuum, [1].--Cooljuno411 (talk) 08:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The only relevant question is whether 'Zoophilia' and so forth are recognized as sexual orientations by scientists. And the answer is no, they are not (or at least no one has presented evidence to show that they are). Thus this content does not belong in the template. Skoojal (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the zoosexuality article, it appears that a reasonable volume of literature has been produced which references the term. You know, everyone needs to read this article, everyone who does seems to be learning a lot of new things from it. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that article is pretty good -- in some ways it does a better job of defining sexual orientation than sexual orientation. However, "used by scientists" is not the same as being in consensus scientific usage -- there are many debates within psychology on precisely this question, which have partisans on both sides. Although I don't want to exclude anything out of hand, it's also not NPOV to blindly list every scientist's perspective as if being published in a journal made it authoritative consensus -- scientific journals are often the scene of heated debate!

Dybryd (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Apologies for being overburdened enough not to be able to invest time in this but... please, please, please can we clean up the use of references and other html mark-up? I'm trying to save non-heterosexuals and it's adding this weird reference with its own wiktionary definition link and formatting. I feel that should go n the most logical article instead of every article the template is used on. I suppose an alternative would be to just remove the template from the article but that's a less-than ideal solution. Banjeboi 10:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to leave the second group in, I would like to propose moving "pansexuality" to the top group, as it deals with gender, like homo-/bi-/heterosexuality. --Alynna (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think there are two issues here. First, sexual orientation is not necessarily the same thing as sexual identity. Sexual orientation is specifically in reference to an object (which could be a living being); sexual identities may and perhaps typically are based on sexual orientation (that is certainly what a Freudian would claim) but this need not be the case. The second issue is ompliance with our verifiability policy. There may be individuals who experience their bodies as uniquely their own. But language is not - it is social, and the meanings of words depend on how they are used. We all know dictionaries are generally unhelpful when talking about topics that are matters of a great deal of academic research (such research generally shows complexities that dictionaries are unconcerned with). My only problem with the template is that it may give too much weight to DSM-IV. I do consider this a reliable source. But it is not the only one, since anthropologists and sociologists as well as historians have studied sexual orientation as well. Work by these other scholars would also constitute reliable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment I think that just having hetero, homo, and bisexual is not enough. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia it exist to inform people of things that they don't know already. Hetero homo and bi are well known. Zoosexual, autosexual, etc are orientations just like the others. For that reason we should include all the possible orientations one can have. I think that the articles on androphilia and gynephilia should be included for completeness (many transwomen and transmen prefere that their orientations be refered to in that way. Don't belive me look at the articles linked to homosexual transsexual.) I also think that including citations in a template is a little much. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Because there isn't enough science to know what the most valid definition should be, multiple reasonable ones have emerged, with no way to distinguish among them. There are reasonable definitions of "sexual orientation" that are restricted to erotic interest in male versus female (i.e., the sex in "sexual orientation" refers to which sex you are into); and there are reasonable definitions of "sexual orientation" that are broad (i.e., the sex in "sexual orientation" refers to how and with whom you like to have sex). They refer to different senses of the word sex. In the former and far more common use, zoophilia, autosexuality, and pomosexuality are out. In the latter, zoophilia and autosexuality (and the other paraphilias) would be in.

As for "pomosexuality," I am aware of no evidence to suggest that it is a valid reflection of sexual interest at all and not merely a reflection of one's sociopolitical oppositional defiance.

Let me suggest that the template use a dictionary-like format that acknowledges the frequency of the various uses. For example, it might read: Most common use (heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual); Less common use or technical (paraphilia, androphilia, gynephilia, asexual); Controversial (pomosexual, pansexual)

Using "levels" in the headings allows the broadening that Hfarmer (correctly, IMO) sought, without putting undue weight on the fringe or debatable ones, which folks don't appear to want to have on the same "level." Using "paraphilia" captures the full range of sexual interests without having to choose among zoophilia, autosexuality, and the other many paraphilias. (In fact, it might be a good idea to include list of paraphilias as a link; I've been working on it on-and-off lately.)

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 00:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, James, that's exactly why I added paraphilia to the template as part of my original changes. Although many paraphilias are asserted to be orientations by their advocates, there are simply so many that it would be very unwieldy to list them all (and how unfair to the necrophiles if we include zoophilia while excluding them!)

I think a link to list of paraphilias is a much better choice than picking one or two paraphilias to arbitrarily "promote" as orientations.

Dybryd (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the definition of sexual orientation is more a matter of convention than anything else. My point was that we should follow the most common scientific convention. I'm personally not aware of any definition of sexual orientation that includes the specific details of exactly how one wants to sex, as opposed to the gender of the people with whom one wants to have sex. However, James's suggestion seems like a good one (although I am surprised to see that paraphilias would be deemed 'sexual orientations'). Skoojal (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment:

The 'paraphilias' are simply fluxional (in time and place), socio-political constructs. No wonder you are having some trouble. If necrophilia was found to cure cancer, tomorrow, millions would become necrophiles, tomorrow.

The issue is simple. One is sexually-aroused by something or one is not (thus, there is some orientation or there is not. There will then be degrees of orientation, to a number of things, for each person ... imagine a multi-dimensional version of Kinsey's Scale). It is also important to note that Kinsey was referring to sexual activity, not fantasy.

It is all part of our rich and textured neurological tapestry, which allows us to create great art, music, architecture, science etc and, yes, destroy the environment etc. Some of our 'Greatest Giants' had 'DSM conditions'.

I often describe us as 'cavemen with f**cked-up brains' - that is *all* of us. You are counting the number of angels on the pin head, I am afraid.

Yours,

Nigel.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 16:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nigel is incorrect: Kinsey's ratings were a combination of behavior, fantasy, and identity. Modern sex researchers rate each of those characteristics independently. Kinsey never indicated how he arrived at his final ratings from what the study subjects said.
Show me someone who believes the issue is simple, and I will show you someone who does not understand the issue.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 16:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC

Comment:

Dear Dr Cantor,

I can find you the source that it was based on sexual activity, if you wish. I cannot, of course, account for its veracity.

"The Kinsey scale attempts to describe a person's sexual history or episodes of their sexual activity at a given time." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale

"The Kinsey scale ranked sexual behavior from 0 to 6 ..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports

"Another problem with Kinsey's use of his own scale was that his studies used past sexual behaviour as the only criteria ..." http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A570098

Perhaps you should be correcting those before challenging me.

No, show me someone who wishes to complicate it, and I will show you someone receiving research grants or funding of some other type.

Now, if you wish to discuss mechanism, then that is something else.

Yours,

Nigel.

Addendum: The fact I asked readers to visualise the, clearly-existing, multi-dimensional nature of human sexuality, based on Kinsey, was only illustrative. I am not providing my full hypothesis, as some, wet-behind-the-ears researcher may steal it ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 17:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It makes no sense to cite what people have said about Kinsey's methods, when one has Kinsey himself: On page 638 of "Sexual Behavior of the Human Male," (where he presented his now famous scale) he wrote "Based on both psychologic reactions and overt experience, individuals are rated as follows: ..."
I have never received funding to study sexual orientation. Making up information to suit your arguments will not help you to convince others of the validity of your arguments.
There is little I can do to convince you I have no desire to steal anyone's research ideas. Moreover, anyone can assert that they have any kind of an hypothesis or discovery when they are unwilling to provide evidence of it. Feel free to return to this thread after you have published your hypothesis and therefore established provenance.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 18:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment:

Dear Dr Cantor,

"It makes no sense to cite what people have said about Kinsey's methods, when one has Kinsey himself: On page 638 of "Sexual Behavior of the Human Male," (where he presented his now famous scale) he wrote "Based on both psychologic reactions and overt experience, individuals are rated as follows: ...""

It makes every sense. The point of this site is to educate, clarify and elucidate. That is what I do. I trust you read my addendum.

"I have never received funding to study sexual orientation. Making up information to suit your arguments will not help you to convince others of the validity of your arguments."

Did I mention you? But, since you did .... your work is not related to sexual orientation? Is that your claim, here, in public? Your institution does not receive funding? You do not receive a salary? Who is paying for all the NMR time? ;)

"There is little I can do to convince you I have no desire to steal anyone's research ideas."

It's always 'you, you, you.' :)

"Moreover, anyone can assert that they have any kind of an hypothesis or discovery when they are unwilling to provide evidence of it. Feel free to return to this thread after you have published your hypothesis and therefore established provenance."

Heck no. I need many more people to make continually-more mistakes (and correct observations), before anyone is ready for me to publish my work or hypotheses. If it is not me, someone else will get there, in time.

Yours,

Nigel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 18:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If anyone finds value in whatever argument your above vagaries are trying to make, s/he can certainly chime in.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 18:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment:

Dear Dr Cantor,

I am sorry if you think me vague. I like to think of myself as being careful. I think my hypothesis (as far as it has been presented) is pretty clear and consistent with all the evidence.

I guess you would put my apparent vagaries down to me being ill - yes? Maybe that is because of your shrunken hypothalamus and overall neural symmetry, in conflict with your frontal lobes, in comparison to a normal man ;) ... you think ?

Yours,

Nigel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 20:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The purpose of this template, as far as I can tell, is not to encompass every sexual orientation article per se but to overview the main articles to best serve our readers. Zoosexual is the more developed of the three and involves sexuality with animals which the article asserts is pretty rare in the sense of sexual orientation. Although many may find that interesting it seems to serve to promote a fringe sexual orientation to include that here. It may be appropriate to have a template with every sexual orientation or, like most articles, it doesn't need to be on a template at all and instead efforts should be made to improve it. Autosexual is barely a start article with one source, although this may also be interesting it doesn't seem mainstream by any stretch of the imagination and needs a lot of work before comparisons to other sexual orientation takes place on this template. Likewise pomosexual needs development and movement beyond a neologism and likely a transfer into mainstream scientific communities for it to be considered alongside the other terms. I'm unsure if the originating RfC intended to figure out where or whether to include these but in now having to spend time in each I was say none of the three should be included and the only remaining issue is what to do with paraphilia? I'm also unsure if it should be included or what to label it that doesn't open the issue up to a new round of template creep. Banjeboi 02:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment. To me, there is a distinction between orientation and preferences. Orientation means who the person finds attractive (the same sex, the opposite sex, or both sexs). Preferences refers to the behaviours and/or fantasies an individual finds arousing. Given this premise, zoosexuality would be an orientation (to non-human animals)Autosexuality could be classified as both an orientation (if practiced exclusively), and as preference (non-exlusivity).Pomosexaul would be an orientation. (see atheism as a religion).~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writerz (talk • contribs)

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

"hetero-homo"?

This discussion has been collapsed.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

"hetero-homo continuum"? This is awkward and unencyclopedic - not sure how it should be fixed but is it even needed to have a hetero-homo section and a non-hetero-homo section? Seems pointy to me. Banjeboi 14:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the source for this? Kinsey? It is my sense that most scholars today do not classify sexual orientation in terms of a bi-polar continuum. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

actually, that's a fairly common usage in gender studies - note that the APA link I gave above (here it is again) uses almost exactly that language. it's just the extension outside of human sexuality that is novel (unprecedented is maybe a better word).

Okay, as long as you have a verifiable reliable source. Fine by me. Still, I suspect researchers in other fields have different approaches. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

no question, and I wouldn't mind seeing that discussed on an article page - but this is a template, for heaven's sake. :-) --Ludwigs2 21:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

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

original research in template

This discussion has been collapsed.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Cooljuno -PLEASE take this entire discussion, and the changes you're trying to make, over the the sexual orientation article, where it can be discussed properly. templates are not the place to try to structure a particular view.

also, footnotes don't belong in info-templates (they end up bleeding over into article space). if what you're trying to do is complicated enough that it needs footnotes, it's way too complicated for a template. --Ludwigs2 06:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read the provided references and linked articles to help understand sexual orientations. Heterosexual-homosexual continuum now has it's own article and has a reference from the American Psychological Association [2] "a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality", and additional references. Please consider reading this and understanding the Heterosexual-homosexual continuum before you claim original research. And references have no problems being on templates, the United States article as well has references in it's article. If you are finding a problem with the reference system, please open a talk section, and not revert edits. I will make a template that will allow the template references not to "bleed over into template space", but until then the bleeding over will have to be tolerated, it is not affecting the appearance and people will still be able to access the correct reference .--Cooljuno411 [ talk ] 06:32, 25 July 2008 [UTC]

Ok, i "noinclude" the references on this template. The references are not included wherever the template is placed, only on the actual template page. The only thing that appears is "view template source" at the bottom of the template. People wishing to view the template references can click that, and will be redirected to this actual template page and can view the sources. The issue of the references "bleeding over" to the articles is now solved. You can view Heterosexuality and see that the references numbers (^{[1] [2]}) are not there, but appear only on the template page.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 07:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Cooljuno - the references are a minor point. you are trying to change the conventional usage of commonly accepted terms by pressing a point in templates. you should be discussing this in article space, and if a consensus emerges in article space (one that is based on properly reliable sources) then and only then should we consider changing templates to fit. --Ludwigs2 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, i have referenced and taken all proper procedure. So you are out of luck. And please indulge me in how i am "changing the conventional usage". And also please tell me how i am "twinkling". If you actually prove, i will stop the continuing of the reverting.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 03:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It is only logical: templates help us organize articles on linked topics at Wikipedia; they are an intra-Wikipedia reference tool. Ludwigs2 is quite right - everything that goes into a template should derive from actual articles. If there is some controversy over the state of research on a particular topic, the place to hash it out is at the article space. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, your right, "everything that goes into a template should derive from actual articles", it is when you have it how it is, Ludwig's ideal version of the template is not, there are references and link to heterosexual-homosexual continuum and other things he, for some reason unknown to me, finds wrong with how the template is. The template is correct as is.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Cooljuno - I have given you a link to the APA opinion on this issue, which should be sufficient to support the original version of the template, and my compromise version as well. you have given no such support for your inclusions, so they are 'in fact' original research. fight the issue on article pages, where sources can effectively be brought to bear. DO NOT EDIT WAR IT into templates, which are not designed to handle content disputes. --Ludwigs2 19:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

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

combined sexual orientation and sexual identities

This discussion has been collapsed.

Please continue talk hereTo help keep this discussion organized, please follow the link to the discussion area bellow. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There has been controversy of what exactly falls under a sexual orientation and what fall under sexual identity. For example, some find asexuality to be a sexual orientation and other feel it sexual identity. By combining the two group the template holds a neutral point of view, leaving the exact classification up to the user. By separating them we are putting one of point-of-view above the other. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a valid point but there seems to be no consensus for that change as of yet. It seems like each of the disputed articles should be improved so it's clear what each is considered. It may even make sense to have a related subjects section so that we do remain neutral. Banjeboi 23:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it is imperative to have them grouped together, who is someone to say that, for example, autosexuality isn't a sexual orientation and is a "sexual identity", and vise-versa. I personally take offense by saying one's emotional desires aren't "an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction" and just regarded as sexual choices, it implies that people under these "sexual identities" do not experience emotional, romantic, or affectional attraction, which i find to be rather ignorant that some who is not heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual does not have the right to, nor experiences, these compassionate feelings. It is not in our place to say what is a sexual orientation and who can experience "an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction" and what is just regarded as sexual desires. I am reverting the edit with a minor wording changes, it not my, your right, or anyones right to say what is "an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction", and what is not.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC) And the thing you said about zoosexuality being under heterosexual-homosexual continuum was a visual error, i originally had a "br" separating them but someone removed it, this time i use a line to separate them.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are confusing sexual identity and sexual orientation in a way that is never done in the literature. sexual orientation always refers to to the continuum from heterosexuality to homosexuality in humans; there is nothing in the psychological or gay/lesbian literature that says otherwise.

PLEASE take this discussion to an article page, rather than trying to force it in on a template. original research in templates is very bad form. --Ludwigs2 01:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your good faith edit, and like i said above, i combined sexual orientation and sexual identity to leave opinions such as yours up to the reader. Like i said above, not everyone has the same views on this topic, some say only the hetero-homo continuum are orientations, and some definitions disagree with that. I have found a way that pleases everyone involved and holds a neutral point of view, so please stop trying to push your personal opinion on this template, you have no right to.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

again, what you are offering is original research. come back with with some verifiable sources that support the view that these things are part of sexual orientation and we can discuss the matter. until then, please leave the template with the (admittedly vanilla) but conventional definition.

CoolJ - I understand that you are trying to make a point here, but this just is not the correct venue to be making points. I can see having this discussion on a talk page, or on some article space, but not on a template. --Ludwigs2 02:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Like i said i combined "sexual orientation" and "sexual identities", if i recall you were the one that made the sexual identity section, the only thing i did was combine the two sections two remain neutral, being that there are wide verity of opinions. I am taking it you have an underling agenda and that you are know contradicting your own edits. Like i said, the only thing i did was combine the two sections that you created, in an effort to remain neutral, and you now you have removed all mention of it simply because they are grouped together. I am going to be seeking administrator assistance because you are going forth with a personal agenda to keep them separate.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Heavens to betsy! you are on a program, man. look, I don't really disagree with your perspective, and I personally don't have an opinion about whether your expanded understanding about sexual orientations has merits. if you really want to pursue this, you have several options: 1) get a PhD and argue for it in academic circles. 2) write a book and argue for it in the real world. 3) (and this would be the easiest short term goal) write an essay and post it here on wikipedia as an essay. I'll even help you get started on the last if you'd like. but stop trying to impose original research as fact in a frigging template! that's silly, and against wikipedia policy. --Ludwigs2 20:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sexual orientation and sexual identities

Please continue talk hereTo help keep this discussion organized, please follow the link to the discussion area bellow. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Renamed template to Sexual orientations and sexual identities. This data will correspond with Template:Sexual identities. So User_talk:Ludwigs2 please refer to this template for your desired references. I based my edit 100% on your previous edit [3], but instead of having the sexual orientation and sexual identities separate, i combined the two sections, just how Template:Sexual identities is formated. And if continue your broken record tactics of repetitively claiming "original research", you will continue to prove you have an underlying agenda. And matters like this do not need a reference, they just need a lil' common sense. And if you really need a reference, feel free to look at the one you use to make your two separate lists in the first place, because all i did was combine the two lists you made.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 08:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect you'll keep hearing "original research" until you, you know, provide a reference... – Luna Santin (talk) 08:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The whole controversy, if you read above, is personal classification of what exactly a sexual orientation and sexual identity is. Such classifications as asexuality are interpreted by some as a sexual orientation and by others as sexual identity. In an effort to remain neutral, it has became imperative to combine the two separate list under on titled Sexual orientations and sexual identities. By keeping them separate we are supporting one agenda above the other. And i don't know why he need a reference, i am just combining the two lists he made himself, into one, maybe he should look at what references he used to make the list in the first place. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

We need references because this is an encyclopedia with a heavy bias toward scholarly content. I'm sure you can provide ample evidence of your own opinions. Do you have any evidence this is supported by mainstream academia? – Luna Santin (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sweetie, do you not understand what is going on? Please try rereading the whole talk again, this is a matter of neutrality. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This was moved without gaining consensus. I have no great opinion either way, but clearly the opinions expressed did not indicate a consensus to merge the two. Also, the time from when you began discussion until the time you merged was much too small. You gave essentially a day and a half for discussion. SOmething like this should have taken a few weeks for discussion to build a consensus. IMO you should put it back and build consensus. This is a template, not a lone article and as such should be treated with exceptional sensitivity. The article has been entirely too volatile. Atom (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This page shows no consensus for such a move, in fact, in the 9 hours span between your proposal and your move, only one other editor commented, and he opposed it. As such, your edit was disruptive. Please self-revert, or I'll do it. ThuranX (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

there is no consensus for this move; CJ is just pushing and pushing for his own perspective. I don't want to keep undoing his work myself (I've been doing it too often, but I will, if necessary), but if someone else wants to do it, I think this clearly constitutes page-move vandalism. --Ludwigs2 20:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove the sexual identities/orientations. By doing so you are just as guilty of what you accuse me of. As i recall by the original edit, [4], they were on the template before this whole conflict, so please do not remove them. And once again, i combined the list "sexual orientations" and "sexual identities" to say "orientations and identities". I will once again repeat the dispute. There is controversy f what exactly falls under a "sexual orientation" and what exactly falls under a "sexual identity". And once again i will say by having them separate, and having classifications, such as asexuality or zoosexuality, under one list or the other puts one agenda above the other, and is un-neutral. For example, you and others might see asexuality as a "sexual identity" and others see it as a "sexual orientation", but having it under one list or the other puts one agenda above another agenda. And once again i will say, we have not right to say who is right and who is wrong, so the only way to remain neutral is to have the lists combined. And User:Ludwigs2, how am i pushing my agenda, i am trying to remain neutral by having them together, you are the one pushing your opinions by having them separate. And if anyone is going to continue to revert, revert to this edit [5], the edit everyone keeps reverting to is an even newer edition by User:Ludwigs2 which was made with out input as well. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

CoolJuno - There is no controversy in secondary sources, as far as I can see. the only conflict here is with your personal understanding of the issue, and while I respect that, it clearly constitutes original research and does not merit inclusion on a template that is transcluded across a broad range of pages. this template was about sexual orientation which is a well-established and well-defined topic in secondary sources; it was not and is not a template about sexual identities, sexual preferences, or sexual behaviors. if you want to make it a template about that, that's worthy of discussion, but you are not discussing, you are edit-warring. set the template back to what it was, LEAVE IT LIKE THAT, and discuss the changes you want to make like a decent editor.

if you are not going to be reasonable and try to reach consensus, particularly when a number of editors clearly oppose the changes you are making, then I will treat you like a vandal and revert the damage you are doing. I am willing to listen to you and maybe come to some sort of compromise (I really don't care about this issue, except to the extent that it reflects consensus in verifiable sources), but I'm not going to put up with this aggressive and childish insistence that you get your way. If I ever want to deal with that kind of thing, I'll have kids of my own. understood? --Ludwigs2 22:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, i just combined the two lists to remain neutral. ANd do you want a reference? Here [6], Sexual orientation: Ones tendencies of sexual attraction, considered as a whole. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

and once again, combining the two lists (while possibly a valid move) should only be done after proper talk page discussion because (once again) this is not how the issues are presented in secondary sources. further, a reference to wiktionary is not a valid secondary source (at best it's a tertiary source, assuming that it itself is properly validated), and even if it were there would still be synthesis issues here that we'd need to discuss.

I want you to understand that I'm not objecting to the changes themselves; I'm objecting to the way you are going about making them. slow down, stop making the same contentious changes over and over again, and try to reach some compromise through discussion that we can all agree to, before you try to put it in the template. I'm not against letting you get what you want here (which is maybe a dangerous thing to say on this topic) but it needs to be substantiated in wp:secondary sources, and have some reasonable consensus among various editors. ok?

combined sexual orientation and sexual identities discussion

~~I have put in a request for input from users on Portal:LGBT. Pleas continue further discussion here.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)~~ I put the rquest in the wrong place, can someone tell me where i can place request.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary, Sexual Orientation: "Ones tendencies of sexual attraction, considered as a whole." --Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- wiktionary is not a valid wp:secondary source.

Religious tolerance: "Some conservative Christian organizations define "sexual orientation" very broadly as a list of parameters that define all aspects of one's sexual desires.....Pedophilia -- being sexually attracted to children -- would be another part for a small minority of adults. So would bestiality -- being attracted to animals. Accepting this definition would complicate government legislation dealing with sexual orientation. Any civil rights legislation which extends protection to persons on the basis of their sexual orientation would, under this definition, also decriminalize pedophilia and bestiality. "--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- this article goes on to say "To our knowledge, this definition does not appear in any dictionary or medical text; it seems to be used only by a minority of fundamentalist and other evangelical Christians" which would make it fall under wp:undue. not to mention the fact that this viewpoint is adopted by people who want to criminalize all non-straight sexual behavior... --Ludwigs2 00:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  - Remember how i said "there are different views on this, and we are to remain neutral and can't support one agenda above the other.... And btw, that would be a false statement, i just quoted American Psychological Association bellow. "--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation Worksheet, by Ben Roe: "not just three sexual orientations, heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual, but indeed a whole range of complex, interacting, and fluid factors in our sexuality."--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

American psychological association: Sexuality, What is sexual orientation: "sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories... However, some people may use different labels or none at all."--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the quote from American Psychological Association that i list above is evident enough to support my editions to the template.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Except that the APA page you've linked makes it abundantly clear they use the phrase "sexual orientation" to refer to the heterosexual-homosexual continuum. The Klein Grid doesn't make any apparent mention of zoophilia, autoeroticism, or any of the other items you're pushing to include here. Your desired changes remain unsupported by any reliable sources and are clearly opposed by a consensus of editors here. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No sweetie, it says clearly "However, some people may use different labels or none at all", that is only you opinion that it is "unsupported by any reliable sources". --Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop calling people 'sweetie', it's condescending. Stop quoting from Wikitionary; you can't cite Wikis to push things in other wikis. There is no question in the medical literature about the difference between orientations and identities; you push your own agenda to conflate the two. Please cease now. Consensus remains against your edits and goals, and is unlikely to change soon. This has been going of fro weeks now and is well into tendentious territory; only Ludwigs2 is bothering to continue this, and I'm here supporting him. If you're in any way unclear about the implications, know that I can't stand Ludwigs2. That I'm publicly on the same side and supporting his arguments instead of letting him stand alone should say volumes. You need to drop this already. You're wrong, everyone so far seems to clearly oppose your goals. If you persist, you will wind up blocked or banned. Stop before then. ThuranX (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No, your pushing you agenda by denying clearly what the American Psychological Association says "sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories... However, some people may use different labels or none at all." And you would clearly discover you are wrong if you click a link or two, feel free to select the one above. And if you recall, my edit had to sub sections one with orientations that comply to heterosexual-homosexual continuum and and on that didn't. So please tell me what your issue is with that. And btw, i am the one with the refernce on my side, where's yours?--Cooljuno411 (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree: calling other editors "sweetie" is entirely inappropriate, and you should stop. That aside, what reference is on your side, exactly? Each time we point out your latest cherry-picked sentence is incorrectly interpreted, you go and cherry pick another snippet. The source as a whole clearly refers to orientation on the aforementioned continuum. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I support the previous edit by Cooljuno411, his addition clearly complies by the article writen by the American Psychological Association. His edit complies to the definition that says sexual orientations do not have to comply to the heterosexual/homosexual continuum. It supports every contender at hand by clearly classifying what falls under the continuum and what does not fall under the continuum, his addition is the only one that I have seen that supports the definition provided by the APA. The current edit completly denies what the APA says about sexual orientations and how people may use "different labels or none at all". --StealthyVlad (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What part of the edit complies with "Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes."? The APA may vaguely allude to the presence of other ideas, once in an entire page which otherwise uniformly describes the homo-hetero continuum, but doesn't identify any of them; absent a specific and explicit reference, the source being used to justify these extra inclusions appears to be nothing more than personal opinion. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Like [s]he said, [s]he believe that "It supports every contender at hand by clearly classifying what falls under the continuum and what does not fall under the continuum". And it obviously complies to "some people may use different labels or none at all". And know who is the one that is guilty of making "cherry-picked sentences"?--Cooljuno411 (talk) 05:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, for emphasis: The APA may vaguely allude to the presence of other ideas, once in an entire page which otherwise uniformly describes the homo-hetero continuum, but doesn't identify any of them by name; absent a specific and explicit reference, the source being used to justify these extra inclusions appears to be nothing more than personal opinion. If you can't cite these inclusions to a specific reference, it seems to follow quite obviously that they are unreferenced. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ugh! alright, I'm going to give User:StealthyVlad a link to read about Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. I will assume good faith that this user created an account simply to support CoolJuno411's position (since this comment is the only edit that user has made on wikipedia), but I may request a checkuser report regardless. people, I swear... --Ludwigs2 05:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well if you look at his talk page, there was an article he attempted to create, which was deleted, over a year ago.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment:

Treatments to Change Sexual Orientation FRED S. BERLIN, M.D., PH.D. Baltimore, Md.

The Journal recently published a "Position Statement on Psychiatric Treatment and Sexual Orientation" that had been approved by the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association (1). That statement correctly cautions mental health professionals that there is little scientific evidence to support the efficacy of treatments designed to change sexual orientation. That statement was intended to address the matter of homosexuality and to take a clear stand "against discrimination, prejudice, and unethical treatment..., including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation" (p. 1131).

The psychiatric profession still correctly considers pedophilia to be a mental disorder. However, like heterosexuality and homosexuality (orientations that differ from one another on the basis of differences in sexual attraction), pedophilia, too, can be thought of as a sexual orientation that is different from others on the basis of age of attraction. As with other sexual orientations, irrespective of the relative contributions of genetics and environment, maturing individuals discover the nature of their own attractions; such attractions are not the consequence of a volitional decision. Historically, untold numbers of human beings have been both demonized and vilified simply because their sexual makeups differ from the norm ...

How are you going to fit that into your restrictive APA definition?

Yours,

Nigel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 06:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite simple: by pointing out you're citing a letter to the editor, which is generally not considered a reliable, peer-reviewed source. If there's any confusion on this point, only part of the quote you're using is from the APA (specifically, the part which refers to orientation on the continuum -- fancy that). – Luna Santin (talk) 06:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Luna Santin, i would love to get your input on what exactly asexuality, autosexuality, zoosexuality is. Because you have not given any input but saying your personal opinion of why everythings wrong. Know it's your turn, what exactly do you feel falls under and orientation and what do you propose we do with this article.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 07:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, but the burden of evidence remains with those who want to push through changes. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well i have already given you a quote from the APA, so there ya go. And btw, the current edit would contradict your opinion you put forth, you said only hetro-homo continuum orientations are true orientation, well not according to the current edit. So do you think it would be time for you to prove a point yet, or are you just going to make agreements to defend something that clearly goes against what you are are arguing. I am just curious, have you even scene my previous edit? If you haven't, here it is, you can clearly see that it has two sections under sexual orientations, one section with heterosexual-homosexual continuum orientations and another section with orientations that do not fall under that classification. We would be satisfying every party involved. I ask if you have scene my edit because i believe many do not even understand what i am trying to even get at. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

besides, I already did that, way back in this discussion (probably archived now...). look, part of the problem here is that 'sexual orientation' is an oldish term - it came into use before the concept of 'sexual identity' came into existence, and so it really has no capacity to deal with the complexities of modern understandings of sexuality. In 20 years 'sexual orientation' might be a history book phrase: no one will use it except to talk about how narrow-minded we were in the last century. but it means what it means, narrow as that is, and we can't go changing the meaning of the phrase to suit our own personal preconceptions. yah? --Ludwigs2 07:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well not according to the quote i gave you from the APA.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Except that the APA quote you're relying on doesn't source what you seem to think it does. By your logic, I could add automobile to the sexual orientation list because the APA suggested people use "other" labels, no? After putting some more thought into all of this overnight, I think it may be more appropriate to create a master sexuality navbox, completely aside from this one, where we can more easily build a (hopefully) comprehensive list. Would you be amenable to that? – Luna Santin (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment to Luna Santin:

You believe Berlin and all those who work with him in the field, posted in Am J Psychiatry, are not credible sources?

Addendum: Just checked your details ... you are only a kid/novice. I will take your comments and actions with a pinch of salt.

I say this, because you, as an admin, are restricted to 'believing' that only the 'authorities' change the world ... this is a weakness of Wikipaedia. E=mc^2 should show you otherwise (as in many other cases). This awareness comes with the wisdom of age.

Yours,

Nigel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 08:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, sorry, but I'm not obliged to believe every last word that comes out of a doctor's mouth is gospel truth. By all means, I'm inclined to respect their opinion in an op-ed piece, but when I have a more authoritative and neutral source staring me right in the face, it's abundantly clear which I should rely on. – Luna Santin (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment:

There is a more authoritative and neutral source than the APA? (well, actually, of course, they are not neutral, but that is another story ;) ).

Yours,

Nigel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 17:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I prefer:

sexual orientation n.

The direction of one's sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes, especially a direction seen to be dictated by physiologic rather than sociologic forces. Replaces sexual preference in most contemporary uses.

As it encompasses 'members' of all ages, then being a MAA is coherent with the definition of Sexual Orientation. It is also important to make clear, that it is dependent on/identified by physiologic and not sociologic forces.

IMHO, 'Sexual ID' has little to do with sex, but a lot to do with self image and power bases.

Of course, the most correct definition of all, would be:

The direction of one's sexual interest to anything, especially a direction seen to be dictated by physiologic rather than sociologic forces. Replaces sexual preference in most contemporary uses.

Perhaps we will get there soon :)

Yours,

Nigel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 09:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, you just gave us a definition from a medical dictionary which refers quite specifically to the continuum, then pulled an entirely different definition out of a hat. What gives? – Luna Santin (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment:

I do not care much about your continuum issue ... stick with it if you like (it is obvious that there is a continuum in terms of sexual activity, but this is not the same as sexual orientation or identity). My point is about the wider issues of sexual orientation and how you are being confined by wikiconvention. I have clarified why I prefer the 'medical' definition, over the one under discussion.

The second definition is 'mine' ... which will become the accepted case, in good time.

Yours,

Nigel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 17:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. As much as I think Wikipedia should document the world which "is", I can appreciate more personally the efforts of those who wish to realize the world which "should be". As far as I can see, though, the APA definition cited above fits pretty well with the AHD definition you've provided (if not identically in practice, then at least seemingly so for our purposes on this template). – Luna Santin (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)