Talk:Biology and sexual orientation

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): C.ler2022 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Bcruz-cisneros.

Undated Citation Needed tags

There are 3 undated Citation needed tags. One of them is from March 2007, so if someone more familiar can take a look and see whether they are still needed. Thanks Slywriter (talk) 05:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation in Twins: Evidence That Human Sexual Identity May Be Determined Five Days Following Fertilization

PMCID: PMC10757681 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.51346 The disparity in sexual identity in monozygous twins may relate to the time of splitting of the zygote– twins resulting from splitting on or before day 5 after fertilisation are free to develop their own sexual identity; twins splitting after day five have the same identity.

See: Sexual Orientation in Twins: Evidence That Human Sexual Identity May Be Determined Five Days Following Fertilization Narraburra (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Bad paper, incorrect twin concordance, for example. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment

Hi CommonKnowledgeCreator, thanks for your contribution to the evolution section. However, Wikipedia generally relies on secondary sources. I think you've included excessive focus on the kin selection and antagonistic pleiotropy hypotheses, mostly using primary source studies. It's great there is an overview of the history, but we only need to cite secondary sources on the general consensus on these models. Zenomonoz (talk) Zenomonoz (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I am more than aware that Wikipedia generally relies on secondary sources. However, per WP:BMI, this is not a medical topic and one that appears (after a search of Google Scholar) to have few secondary sources that systematically review the subject (as most of the content does not appear to systematic reviews or meta-analyses), and WP:RS does not preclude primary sources and only states that secondary sources are preferred. As far as evolution and homosexuality are concerned, kin selection and antagonistic pleiotropy are the two main evolutionary hypotheses for homosexuality, and there does not appear to be a consensus about whether either is true. The only review using Google Scholar that I found that discusses kin selection or antagonistic pleiotropy does still suggest that the latter is a plausible hypothesis. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of this argument for including so much focus on primary source studies? Many studies have questionable effect sizes, which is why it's best to avoid them, especially on a topic as controversial as this. As for not being able to find reviews, they are better reviewed and criticized in text books.

"Kin selection and antagonistic pleiotropy are the two main evolutionary hypotheses for homosexuality.. there does not appear to be a consensus about whether either is true" – they're both largely ruled out by GWAS, especially exclusive male homosexuality. There's still plausibility for antagonistic maintenance of the trait through other mechanisms such as this however.

I'm not saying they should not be covered, the Bailey review does indeed refer to both of them. I just think the coverage should be trimmed down, similar to the extent it is covered in that review.

Zenomonoz (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

As for not being able to find reviews, they are better reviewed and criticized in text books. ... I'm not saying they should not be covered, the Bailey review does indeed refer to both of them. Was not aware of the Bailey article is a review. What textbooks refer to them? I certainly agree that reviews would be better than the primary sources cited for the reasons that you've cited. Are there reviews of GWAS research that contradicts the kin selection and antagonistic pleiotropy hypotheses? -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

CommonKnowledgeCreator, alongside the Bailey review you could refer to this textbook with various chapters, or this chapter, or LeVay 2017 also has some discussion of evolutionary hypotheses. There are more I can find if need be. Hope this helps! Zenomonoz (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure that textbook would be great. Unfortunately, it has a paywall so I cannot access it. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

CommonKnowledgeCreator – oh, just start using The Wikipedia Library, which you qualify for. You get access to paywalled content from all the leading publishers. Access to the Springer collection is probably the best, as you get all their papers and books. I recommend using the 'access collection' button on each publisher and then conducting your search, rather than using the search box at the top of Wikipedia Library (which accesses papers in a clunky format, with poor search capability). Hope this helps. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)