Talk:Epigenetic theories of homosexuality

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Ptan9.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

No Criticism section

Ive heard that this theory is still very controversial in science, shouldn't there be a criticisms section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultan42 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be a very good thing, indeed ! Mardochee1 (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What about Epigenetic theories of heterosexuality ?

Wouldn't that formulation be more accurate and neutral ? :

"Following a late 2012 publication on possible epigenetic origins of homosexuality and therefore heterosexuality, some people have suggested that it might be possible to alter one's sexual orientation (homosexual or heterosexual then) with epigenetic therapy, similarly to treatment of diabetes, cancer or schizophrenia. Prenatal hormone therapy may also be used to reduce the probability of homosexuality or heterosexuality in females by compensating or augmenting the effects of androgen overexposure. Why the possibility to reduce the probability of heterosexuality isn't mentioned ?

I wonder... Is it suggested that "some people" want use a so-called "epigenetic therapy" to "cure" homosexuality, like diabetes or cancer ? If so, could the context be more specifically precised ? Is it a claim by Christian scientists or something like that ? Mardochee1 (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, shouldn't this page be renamed as : "Epigenetics theories of homosexuality and heterosexuality" or "Epigenetics theories of sexual orientation(s)" ? What is the reason "Epigenetics therapies" would be focused on homosexuality and not to other sexual orientations at the same time ? Mardochee1 (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You really are very funny! But normality has no need to be explained. And normal people have no need to change their sexual orientation...--217.203.160.86 (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, here we are : you had an anti-gay agenda after all, anonymous IPs. You made these contributions because you think these freaks homosexuals have to change. Homosexuals are normal people, I'm sorry. Mardochee1 (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, it's stupid to claim that heterosexuality has no need to be explained. It's a phenomenon as interesting as homosexuality is "some people" are neutral scientists. And If you can change sexual orientation, it's not in a unique way. Mardochee1 (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, homosexuals are quite normal! And two men or two women can generate a baby!--217.203.160.86 (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, homosexual people are absolutely normal, that's not the point. No one has the obligation to generate babies. Some heterosexual people shouldn't by the way. Mardochee1 (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If you can "alter one's sexual orientation with epigenetic therapy" (on what totalitarian purpose I wonder...), it's homosexuality to heterosexuality, but heterosexuality to homosexuality too by definition. Why is there not mention of that fact ? Because of the homophobic POV that homosexuality should be "cured" ?Mardochee1 (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Took out 3 lines about methylation of histones. That's a pretty bad freshman bio mistake - it's C or A nucleotide base bindings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_methylation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.230.140 (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, though, this article is extremely heterocentric with a deep thread of underlying homophobia. It needs to be moved to "Epigenetic theories of sexual orientation," and all the language should be written from a stance that questions sexual orientation in general instead of just homosexuality specifically. And the term "sexual preference" shows you have no understanding of sexual orientation. I'm going to flag this article as POV. Sowelilitokiemu (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Sowelilitokiemu, I don't care if this article stays or goes. But when it comes to finding out what causes sexual orientation, the vast majority of the research is concerned with focusing on what causes homosexuality (meaning any same-sex sexual attraction). This has also been discussed at the Sexual orientation talk page; see, for example, Talk:Sexual orientation/Archive 4#Asserting that there is no scientific consensus that sexual orientation is not a choice, which shows me discussing the matter with Nick Levinson; in my "16:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)" post, I stated, in part, "One thing about heterosexuality compared to homosexuality is that many people consider heterosexuality to be natural/normal due to the reproductive factor, but view homosexuality as a choice, as something that happens due to some early childhood experience or how the child was raised, or as a biological defect. It's the reproductive factor that also has the scientific community generally focusing more on what causes homosexuality than on what causes heterosexuality when studying possible causes for sexual orientation." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the article has a lot of good information, but it's written from a non-neutral point of view that shows a bias towards heterosexuality. Would an article titled "Epigenetic theories of blackness" be acceptable over "Epigenetic theories of skin color"? It's an implication of "this is what's right, and this is what's wrong." I don't know that it was necessarily written to be intentionally biased (aside from that last section), but people are blind a lot of times to their implicit biases. I'm calling this one out, though.

What's more, though, completely aside from the issue of being discriminatory, is an issue with the semantics of how the research articles are generally written. How can you study the origin of homosexuality if you have no idea what causes heterosexuality? They are two sides of the same coin. A study has to be about sexual orientation. Any study done "on homosexuality" uses heterosexuality as the supposed control. You could look at it exactly the opposite way and say the study was on heterosexuality with homosexuality as the control. The researchers that do this need to think about what they are saying and recognize for accuracy that they are studying sexual orientation and not homosexuality or heterosexuality specifically, even if they don't care that they are harming a minority group. One way or the other, it's ridiculous to write two articles titled "Epigenetic theories of homosexuality" and "Epigenetic theories of heterosexuality." Move everything to "Epigenetic theories of sexual orientation." Sowelilitokiemu (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sowelilitokiemu, I don't see what else to state on the matter except for what I already stated above: The vast majority of the research on sexual orientation is concerned with focusing on what causes homosexuality (meaning any same-sex sexual attraction). It is not as much concerned with what causes heterosexuality. And this is why there is an Epigenetic theories of homosexuality article. Comparing "Epigenetic theories of blackness" and "Epigenetic theories of skin color" is not the same thing, or close to the same thing, at all. Plus, there are the Recent African origin of modern humans and Human skin color articles for people to get enough education on why there are black people and why there are skin color differences at all. Furthermore, people comparing being gay to being a black person fails in various ways, no matter that both groups of people have been heavily discriminated against. I understand your frustration, but this article is a reflection of the scientific community's focus on things like a gay gene, fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation, and so on. Titling the article "Epigenetic theories of sexual orientation," when all or the vast majority of it is about homosexuality would make the title conflict with WP:Precise. But then again, the Fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation article is also mostly about homosexuality, so maybe others would support you in changing the title of this article. You can start a WP:Requested move discussion. Maybe Human10.0, who recently discussed a matter with me at Talk:Fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation, has something to state about some of this? I'll alert WP:Med, WP:Sex, and WP:LGBT to this discussion. This article was created in April 2013, and looks to have been a WP:Class assignment, so it needs scrutiny. And the "Possible applications for sexual orientation change" section needs WP:Med's scrutiny per WP:MEDRS, which I indicated before? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Alerted here, here and here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• as Flyer22 Reborn indicated a title change would make the title conflict with WP:Precise....the current title reflects the article,...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for including me in the discussion. I read the article and I feel if epigenetic research has focused solely on homosexuality, as seems to be the case, then the name of the article does not need to be changed. If I may, there are some additional things regarding this article that I’d like to mention on the talk page. It seems (unless I’m mistaken) that the following lines in the ‘Epigenetic marks’ section are repeating the same points:

“Moreover, epi-marks are modifications of histone proteins. Epigenetic marks are modifications of the methyl and acetyl groups that bind to DNA histones thereby changing how the proteins function and as a result, alter gene expression. Epi-marks change how the histones function and as a result, influence the way genes are expressed.”

Should the lines be edited and merged together? And when the section says “Epigenetic marks are intended to promote normal sexual development while in fetal development”, what does “normal” mean here? In case it means ‘heterosexual’ then the article should use the word ‘heterosexual’ instead of ‘normal’, because otherwise it gives the erroneous impression that homosexuality is ‘abnormal’.

It also appears that the following lines in the ‘Heritability’ section are repeating the same point:

“when these epi-marks are transmitted across generations from fathers to daughters or mothers to sons, they may cause reversed effects, such as the feminization of some traits in sons and similarly a partial masculinization of daughters. Furthermore, the reversed effects of feminization and masculinization can lead to a reversed sexual preference” and “Sex-specific epi-marks that are normally erased and not passed between generations, can lead to an altered sexual preference when they escape erasure and are transferred from a father's genes to a daughter or from a mother's genes to a son.”

Regarding the “Possible applications for sexual orientation change” section, I would like to point out that, in addition to being seriously biased, it is not properly reporting what its sources say. It currently reads: "some people have suggested that it might be possible to alter one's sexual orientation with epigenetic therapy." This seems to give the impression, at least to me, that some scientific authority has suggested that this is realistically (as opposed to theoretically) possible whereas in actuality, the given source says some gay rights activists mistakenly assumed that changing sexual orientation would be realistically possible via epigenetic therapy even though it is not:

"When I discussed [that epigenetics could influence sexual orientation] last year on the radio, gay rights activists seemed to get even more upset at the idea of epigenetics rather than plain genetics. They were worried that as these changes were theoretically reversible, epigenetic drugs might become a future anti-gay treatment in oppressive societies. The complexity and randomness of possible epigenetic changes combined with the biology and multiple influences on sexual preferences make this fear unfounded. So we could (if someone wanted to pay for it) do a large study of thousands of subjects and find hundreds of “gay genes” of tiny influence, but what would we do with them? As we see from the many identical twin pairs who differ in sexual preferences, they would be useless for prediction."

The line “similarly to treatment of diabetes, cancer or schizophrenia” is unsourced and incorrectly implies that homosexuality is a disease that needs treatment. And the line about prenatal hormone therapy fails to mention that the source given (a news article) says giving dexamethasone (a synthetic hormone) in utero can theoretically (not necessarily realistically) reduce the chances of (female) homosexuality only in cases of female fetuses with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH). The source does not mention if the mechanism of action of dexamethasone involves epi-marks so I am unsure of the relevance of the prenatal hormone therapy line in this wiki article. —Human10.0 (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Human10.0, you have provided more than enough reason to take issue with the article. So, Sowelilitokiemu, changes should be made based on what Human10.0 has stated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn and Ozzie10aaaa, I understand that the article needs to reflect the sources, but it also has to be NPOV. "Epigenetic theories of homosexuality" isn't NPOV until there's a page titled "Epigenetic theories of heterosexuality." The problem is the research sources aren't neutral, at least in terms of the way they phrase the description of the research. Just because the sources are non-neutral doesn't excuse the Wikipedia article from being NPOV. Discussion of causes of homosexuality should be balanced with discussion of causes of heterosexuality, or just use "sexual orientation" to be neutral if more neutral sources can be found to reflect this. Without those sources, though, the article is just not NPOV. As for the title, WP:Neutral point of view states "Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally." I will look for some sources that are more neutral when I can find some time to do the research. I would appreciate someone else looking to. Thank you for raising the issue in other forums. Sowelilitokiemu (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Sowelilitokiemu, you are not interpreting the WP:Neutral policy correctly; for example, see its WP:Due weight section and the subsections for that section (WP:Valid and WP:Balance). Being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse. We should not create an article that complements another article just to be "neutral." And we cannot do so anyway, if the research for that other article is not there. And when it comes to titling an article, we should be precise and should also adhere to WP:Common name and other things noted at WP:Article titles. On a side note: There is no need to WP:Ping me to this talk page since this article/talk page is on my WP:Watchlist. I take it that I don't need to ping you here either, since you will check back here for replies or since this article is on your WP:Watchlist? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit to this page under University of Western Ontario - Advanced Genetics 3595A

Hi! I'm a student in UWO and will be editing this page for my course. I will like to look into adding for citations and research findings in this article especially with regards to epigenetic marks. I will also like to work on the criticism section that has been suggested by a fellow wiki-editor. I look forward to all the feedbacks from everyone. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptan9 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Theory or hypothesis?

Also, how many are there? If more than one, what are the differences? On a superficial reading it looks to me like there is one hypothesis. The title suggests more than one theory. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Rename with more accurate and neutral title

I suggest Epigenetic influences in the variation of sexual orientation • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Pbsouthwood/Peter (Southwood), did you become aware of this article because of the #What about Epigenetic theories of heterosexuality ? section above? Either way, what to title the article is being discussed in that section. Notice the point about not changing the "homosexuality" part of the title to "sexual orientation" if the article is mostly or only about homosexuality. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I saw a request to take a look on the Wikiproject:Medicine talk page, which I occasionally view. I did see the discussion above, and I don't think the article is, or should be, primarily about homosexuality. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Pbsouthwood (last time WP:Pinging you to this section because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies), I am the one who left that request at WP:Med (noted in the "What about Epigenetic theories of heterosexuality ?" section above); that's why I asked if you commented here because of the "What about Epigenetic theories of heterosexuality ?" section. As for the article, how is it not primarily about homosexuality? And how can we make it not so much about homosexuality if the sources on this topic are primarily or only about homosexuality? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

1. On my watchlist.
2. To me it is about epigenetic influences on gene expression relating to sexual orientation. The language of the article strikes me as biased in places. I am not a geneticist, so please have patience if I express myself clumsily. If there are epigenetic influences on the expression of a gene, there are at least two ways it can express, If one way results in a homosexual orientation, there will presumably be other/s resulting in other sexual orientation/s, which may not yet have been studied. The current title does not allow for those possibilities, so I consider it biased. The article has a scientific title so it should be about science, not sociology and politics. Whether sexual orientation can be altered after the fact may be science, whether it should be is not. In my opinion that should be a matter of personal choice, but I don't wish to debate that point. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

20% of what exactly?

"Only twenty percent of identical twins are both homosexual" surely we mean "among sets of identical twins where at least one twin identifies as homosexual, only 20% are both homosexual." Or something. OmneBonum (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

What do the references say? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Epigenetic markers will spread all throughout genders if this is the case

• Epigenetic markers were cited in 2010 paper of Savillo in the Impermanence of Sexual Phenotypes and it has to function to support such existence of all genders. If there are no earlier claim (in the references of this article epi marks in relation to gender are above the year 2010) of the use of epigenetic markers' influence towards gender development, this finding will be attributed to him.112.198.101.212 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • To answer if epigenetic markers can be used as a cure- pls click on the theory of the impermanence of epigenes by Savillo-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AEpigenetics#Savillo.27s_New_Theory 112.198.99.91 (talk) 12:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
    • The findings of Ngun and Vlain are all presentations without being officially published and peer reviewed and it is becomingly highly controversial. This is another form of premature announcements -http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_574064.asp ; http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/homosexuality-may-be-caused-chemical-modifications-dna how theoretical or hypothetical is this? Is this worth talking unless there is a paper that at LEAST paves the way but it seems there is none.112.198.101.110 (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I think the best title will be The Epigenetic hypothesis of homosexuality for I could not see anything that could permanently hinge me to an acceptable leading statement but all leading to trash112.198.101.110 (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Why is there no leading acceptable statement? Because they are batting each other.

Rice et al bats Ngun...http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/homosexuality-may-be-caused-chemical-modifications-dna Ngun and Vlan bats Rice and accepts a few... https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=TXkBhasAAAAJ&citation_for_view=TXkBhasAAAAJ:2osOgNQ5qMEC Whitehed bats Rice- http://mygenes.co.nz/epigenetics.htm and in this paper of Ngun http://biology-web.nmsu.edu/~houde/biological%20basis%20of%20sexual%20orientation.pdf - how did Ngun knew that there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals... was there a gene..or a similar one to detect it?..this is even in itself self inflicting for if this is done through self revelation he emphasized that "Researchers are usually dependent on self-identification, which may be inaccurate due to the continued social stigmatization of homosexuality. Even assuming a negligible effect from inaccurate self-reporting..." And more criticisms from the outside- http://www.nature.com/news/epigenetic-tags-linked-to-homosexuality-in-men-1.18530 - explore the topic online for more bats -For Ngun (as what you stated: The first indication that epigenetic mechanisms may be involved in sexual orientation emerged from the twin studies (Bailey et al., 2000; Bailey & Pillard, 1991; Kendler et al., 2000; Kirk et al., 2000)-- without the real epigenetic molecular markers exposed/tagged molecularly these could not be considered as epigenetics for there maybe other mechanisms. For Rice-If there are indeed passable epimarkers these could be itself be molecularly tagged so it could be seen as passed and expressed as is... but could this be done in humans? I hope that there will soon stop the batting, issue publishable statements that each would adhere and the audience could not invoke (this will take years for the best support will be molecular studies not just the algorithms of facebook)-- for the meantime enjoy the "batting of the paws" like what your home cats are doing. Grab one tenderly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.102.220 (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute?

The following discussion 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.

---

This page has had a neutrality dispute for a long time for reasons which are hard to decipher from the above comments. Is there any reason why it should still be disputed? --Sxologist (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

No there isn't. The dispute seems to have centered on the title only, per the 2015 discussion above. I don't see why the article should have been tagged for that in the first place. In any case, the dispute has clearly died down since then. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:11, 12 May 2020 (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.