Talk:Sexual orientation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Queer

A couple of people were asking about the nature of Queer. I've written an article on the subject - which should nonetheless be expanded upon. - user:Montrealais

---

I'm puzzled by the meaning of the following sentence.

Since the rise of the gay rights movement in the 1970s, most scientists in the field, psychologists and doctors have come to recognize at least a second exclusive orientation: for members of the same sex (homosexual).

Does "recognize" mean:

• notice that it exists
• regard it as natural and normal

I don't care which meaning was intended: I just want the sentence to be unambiguous. --Uncle Ed

They could be both noticing its existence AND regarding it as natural. ("Normal" and "natural" are not synonyms.) --ScottyFLL 04:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

---

"A vanishingly small minority nonetheless believe that re-orientation from homosexuality to heterosexuality is possible..."

Not entirely comfortable with this para. Yes, there are some people who view sexuality as a choice and use this "fact" to beat gays around the head. On the other hand, there are people who view sexuality as a choice who aren't anti-homosexuality. Just because sexuality may be (to some extent) optional doesn't mean that homosexuality is morally wrong, any more than it would mean heterosexuality is wrong. -Martin

I'm not sure I understand your discomfort, Martin. But it seems you are raising some important questions about the nature of choice itself, as well as the morality of homosexuality. Am I reading you correctly? --Uncle Ed

Difficult to explain...
I believe that we have some degree of choice over our sexuality: it's not something inflicted on us by the universe over which we have no control. However, I don't believe that homosexuals need to be "cured", or whatever. My discomfort is the assumption that this entry and causes of sexual orientation seem to make: that if you believe that there is an element of conscious choice in homosexuality then you are in the same group as believers in reparative therapy and the like. -Martin

I was hoping that the distinction you just made, would not become blurred in any of the Wikipedia articles relating to homosexuality. I have spent a lot of time trying to prevent such blurring. Please continue to point out places where the distinction needs clarification. I hope we can work together to clarify this distinction. --Uncle Ed

---

Sexual Orientation as Biological

Research and the expererience of non-heterosexuals, is now opening another viewpoint that sexual orientation is set in early childhood and perhaps even earlier. Studies of homosexual identical twins suggest that when one twin is homosexual that there is a 40 to 60 percent chance that the other twin will aslo be homosexual. In fraternal twins the figure is 15 to 30 percent. For same sex non-twin siblings the figure is 5 to 10 percent, or roughly the background level (ranges are from a combination of [1] & [2]).

For many, these data strongly indicate a significant biological influence on sexual orientation. For many others, including 2 of the 3 authors (Bailey and Pollard) of the studies cited above, there is a worry that recruiting subjects from readers of gay advocacy magazines may skew the results.

---

Sounds cool, Ed: I'm probably a little over-sensitive about it: I've been burned by both sets of advocates in the past... :-/
I've moved the above here, because it's about the causes of sexual orientation, so I don't think it is needed or desirable here. -Martin

But this article itself must also be balanced per our NPOV policy. There is already a section on Sexual orientation as a "construction" and Religious views, so you can't just take out the only science section. Granted it should be a lead-in to the more extensive article. I'll put it back in a few. --mav

Ok. When you put it back I'll try to change it so that it's a lead-in in a similar way to the religious views section. This NPOV stuff is difficult, you know? I've read the wikipedia article on the subject, but it's unbearably turgid stuff, and even after reading it I still make mistakes like this... learning process, I guess -Martin

My recollection is that the articles Sexual Orientation and Causes of sexual orientation were originally together, and separated (as often happens)when there appeared to be some controversy over one of the sections, and some people thought that it would be easier to develop that section separately. I believe that at some point -- and I think that point is now -- the two articles should be combined and reorganized. After all, what would a simple article on "sexual orientation" be besides a list of objects of sexual gratification? It is my sense that what makes "sexual orientation" a topic worthy of an encyclopedia article is debates over whether so-called sexual orientations are exclusive, and the closely linked debate over "causes." Slrubenstein

I agree that these articles need to be refactored but I'm not in favor of lumping them together again. IMO this article should introduce and provide summaries of all the other more extensive articles on particular topics. --mav

There are a number of related debates/information:

• What causes sexual orientation?
• What sexual orientations are/are not moral? (including religious views)
• What sexual orientations are most/least common? (and how does that vary from culture to culture)
• What sexual orientations are/are not legal? (and how does that vary)
• What do people mean by "sexual orientation" vis-a-vis "sexual behaviour" (but wikipedia is not a usage guide or dictionary)
• What sexual orientations are there? (annotated list)

Seems reasonable to me to keep these different aspects in seperate articles - there's a lot that could be said about each of them... -Martin

Well, there certainly is room for discussion here. I do not think there ought to be an article on "what sexual orientations are or are not moral" because any answer to this question is inherantly POV; instead, the article should account for general theories of sexual morality and debates over sexual morality. In any event, I do agree that sexual morality should be a separate article -- and I think a discussion of sexual morality ought to include a discussion of state regulation of sexuality (e.g. laws) since morality is, for many, just the more general domain of social regulation (mores). But I do think all the other topics you list can be incorporated into one article -- if I count it right, your items 1, 3, 5, and 6 all seem too closely related to meaningfully or effectively discuss separately. Slrubenstein

(there should be a list of other churches - United Church of Canada I believe, but needs to be verified.) (from article)

And there is, at Christian views of homosexuality. I don't think such a list should be duplicated there. -Martin

---

Would it make sense to merge sexual preference with sexual orientation ? I think this is a valid point that is rather lost by being on a seperate page... Martin

I said the above some months ago, and have at last got round to doing it... ;-) Martin

IMHO, there is a big difference between the sexual orientation of an individual and their preferences. Sexual orientation is not a choice - it is more an innate characteristic and/or instinctive trait of an individual sexuality. Where as preferences are in fact a desire's for something - which more to the point is a choice, ex: wanting chocolate vs. vanilla ice cream or wanting to be with a person that has black/brown/blonde hair). Just a thought . . . DCL

But whether you prefer vanilla ice cream or chocolate is not exactly a choice either. It just happens. Evercat 21:04 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Some control their desires by choosing what to do. They are hard workers.

Some control their desires by choosing what to desire. They are blessed.

Some do not control their desires. They are good in bed.

Martin 21:11 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Tropical fish have an innate "orientation" to mating with their own species, although they all pretty much look alike to me. Human beings are more complex, and I don't think the Wikipedia should endorse the view that people are ever born with a homosexual orientation. On the other hand, I don't think we should condemn that view either.

Actually, when I kept fish, one of my guppies was totally in love with one of my platies. :-) Evercat 22:47 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Let's just say that certain biologists, psychologists, sociologists, etc., say that there "is" or "isn't" such as thing as an innate homosexual orientation. Then we can can outline the arguments these experts give to support their views, summarize (or link to) they data they present, and mention any rebuttals from advocates of opposing views.

There's no way we can make a definitive pronouncement on this issue. --Uncle Ed 18:55 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think it's important to remember that we're not talking about inter-species relations here (and, by definition, most non-hetero relations are not actual "mating" in the sense of reproduction). What I think you're addressing is the entire nature vs. nurture+desire vs. action+choice vs. cause debates all roled into one article, however there are probably as many veiwpoints as there are people, you know? It's very hard to capture the whole thing in one article, don't you think? I mean philosophers, researchers, sexologists, etc. have spent lifetimes discussing this...with no definitive conclusion. How can we cover ALL of that here? Paige 19:49 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've no idea, but causes of sexual orientation is where we try... Martin

Yup, that article does try, but as soon as we start talking about the difference between having a desire and acting on it, we get out of the scope of "causes," don't you think? I don't know. I guess I was not only suggesting we leave those debates aside, also just wondering how we could cover it. Maybe if some one wanted to give it a shot, we could all tweek it up, or do you think Ed's ideas could go under the causes article? Paige 21:20 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

My previous comments concerning sexual orientation of an individual and their preferences was to bring to the discussion that there is a difference. I know this can be argued over and over again - BUT IMHO - people do not usually choose their sexual orientation, they either are or are not "fill in the blank." - DCL

Yes, I understand your argument that people do not usually choose their sexual orientation but simply "are" or "are not". I am just saying that the article should mention this idea as one of the major points of view in the debate, rather than endorsing it.

Moreover, as Paige mentioned, there are at least 3 major issues related to the topic (which she listed above). For me, the most important is this: given that a person notices within themself a particular sexual inclination, what ought they to do next? According to my church and others of a like mind, "unprincipled" sexual desire should be resisted by all means. Contrariwise, both the free sex movement and the gay rights movement advise people to regard their desires as natural (inherent) and counsel them to carry them out without guilt.

I don't want to make this article endorse my own POV, of course. I just want it to explore the topic in sufficient detail that the issues are clear to all readers. --Uncle Ed 14:21 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

"Some advocates who do not want people to discuss the morality of homosexuality have used the technique of literary deconstruction to shut people up." Ed, this is not okay, not NPOV, and not wikiquette.Hyacinth 18:02, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)\

I just deleted it. Ed, have you blown a fuse? This kind of stuff just is not appropriate in an encyclopedia article. If you want to contribute to an article, do some research, don't just make things up. I deleted two paragraphs you wrote -- both paragraphs were not only wrong but really distort the situation.

• people who aregue for "social construction" are NOT "deconstructionists"
• decononstruction is used in literary theory, but is primarily a method of philosophy
• social construction is also used in literary theory, but primarily from sociology
• People who analyze the social construction of sexuality are not necessarily taking any stand concerning morality -- but they are ciertainly not arguing against taking a moral stand. I suspect most of them believe homosexuality is moral, and people who oppose it are immoral
• Have you done any research on the word "homosexuality?" Do you know when the word was first used? Do you know how the word was used, at that time -- what it meant at the time? Do you know when people first started using the word in its contemporary meaning? Have you done any research on this?
• If something is constructed, obviously it exists -- so how could a social constructionist (or deconstructionist) argue that something doesn't exist? You fundamentally misunderstand what you are talking about.
• None of these scholars say that it is ireelevant; on the contrary, they believe it is INCREDIBLY relevant which is why they write about it. They write -- and they read. So they certainly are not saying "shut up."

Your actions betray the seriousness of Wikipedia. This is an attempt to write a credible encyclopedia, not just an opportunity to spout your own mis-informed B.S., Ed. Slrubenstein

1. Sounds like you're saying shut up to me, but maybe I'm misinterpreting your remarks, professor. By the way, I have no objection to your removal of my "Some advocates...deconstruction" sentence. Hyacinth also objected, and you are both right. (I've rummaged around it my toolkit and found a replacement fuse with higher amperage ;-)

I'll say "shut up" to anyone who pretends to be educated when in fact they are ifnorant. But I welcome dialogue and debate with someone well-informed. Please provide me with scholarly sources for your comments. Where have deconstructionists like Derrida and DeMan said anything at all like this? Support your claims. If you can't, why do you post this? If you are sincerely interested in this, why do you not go out and educate yourself before presuming to educate others?

1. 'People who analyze the social construction of sexuality are not necessarily taking any stand concerning morality -- but they are ciertainly not arguing against taking a moral stand. I suspect most of them believe homosexuality is moral, and people who oppose it are immoral.' You seem to both affirming and denying that the decontructionists are taking a moral stand: to wit, that opposing homosexuality is immoral. Again, perhaps I'm just misinterpreting you, but I'm an engineer by training. --Uncle Ed 14:25, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Again you bring up "deconstructionists." Who, exactly, do you mean? I know of no deconstructionist who has made this specific argument. Look, Ed., if you are going to pick fancy words at random without having done any serious research, why pick on "deonstructionists?" Why not write "orthodontists" or "entymologists" which make just as much (just as little) sense in this context. Don't use your being an engineer by training as a silly excuse. If you are being genuine, then do not contribute to articles not pertaining to engineering. If you want to contribute to a non-engineering article, by all means do so but do the research into the scholarship first and do not use "I am an engineer" as an excuse for writing deliberiately false statements. Do you think you are being cute? Wikipedia is not your personal playpen. Commit to the project and take it seriously, or take some time off.

But as to my point about "social constructionists," you misunderstand me and I suspect it is because of your bias and not because of your engineering teaining. Let me give you an analogy. A nuclear physicist can tell you how to construct a nuclear bomb. That does not mean that she favors using them -- or favors a nuclear freeze. There political views of the use of nuclear bombs has nothing to do with their expertise as physicists. In fact, many physicists oppose nuclear proliferation, even ones who played a major role in inventing nuclear weapons. Don't you see the difference between technical skill and a moral stance? I will give you another example. An MD may believe personally that abortion is wrong -- but that this is her choice. She will never have an abortion. But she chooses that moral position and gives others the right to choose other moral positions. Although she herself will never have an abortion, she will perform abortions on patients in a hospital. I don't know how likely this is these days, but it is just a hypothetical example to illustrate the difference between one's political and ethical views and one's work.

Some scientists study congenital birth-defects. SOme people are born with a learning disability or let's say a visual impairment. One doctor may say "these people are inferior and should be euthanized (this happened in Nazi Germany). Another doctor may say "these people need help so let's give them special education or eyeglasses" (this happens here). The scientific study of a phenomena and its causes does not necessitate one moral position!

Social constructionists study among other things the construction of gender and sexuality. Their studies reveal much about the meaning and history of gender and sexuality that we can all learn from. Those are historical facts. Are they right or wrong? Good or bad? Healthy or unhealthy? The facts alone do not determine this, you need something else to make a moral decision. So as I sai, social constructionists in the course of their work are not taking any moral stance at all. However, aside from their scholarship, if you ask them what they think, personally, about whether something is right or wrong, I suspect most would say people who descriminate against gays are immoral. But I am sure there are exceptions. Slrubenstein

Is classified as

Should the first sentence read: "Sexual orientation, sexual preference or sexual inclination describes the object, the gender, of a person's amorous or erotic desires, fantasies, and feelings."

Or should the second sentence read: "A person's Sexual orientation is most often classified, by gender of the object, as:..."

Hyacinth 19:59, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I tried to clarify that, as well as removing the term "object" which could be seen as offensive. Sam [Spade] 20:08, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think "object" is psycho-babble, I'm not sure if it is applicable to inanimate objects. Hyacinth 20:27, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Either way, I prefer focus. As far as the "Homo." thing, do we really need to list abbreviations? I agree that Homo is nearly always used a pejorative, but nobody uses "Hom." to my knowledge. I find "Het." unpleasant myself, and would just as soon not have any abbreviations listed at all. Why abbreviate? Sam [Spade] 20:34, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See: Talk:Sexual_orientation#POV_issue

Homosexual virgin

I don't believe in this, does somebody have a reference? I've successfully made the joke for years that if your not sexually active, your not homosexual. In my HS it was the trendy thing to be "gay", but almost none of them were sexually active... until they found a partner of the opposite sex, that is ;) I've seen this similarly played out elsewhere. The choice to experiment w a label is alot easier to make than to experiment sexually. Neither of them constitute a an actual change of Sexual orientation, however. Sam [Spade] 20:40, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Having intercourse with someone does not constitute a "actual change of Sexual orientation" either. In fact, all gay and straight people are at one point virgins. Hyacinth 20:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

POV issue

This article is seriously POV in the sense that it promotes the idea that the sexual orientation of a human must necessarily be one of the few mentioned at the top (heretosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual). Almost all zoophiles, pedophiles, necrophiles etc. regard their own preference as a sexual orientation that should be regarded equal in validity and rights as the commonly accepted ones. Posted by 204.152.189.162

All of those paraphilias include a gender choice, so the point isn't relevent. Sam [Spade] 00:04, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See: Talk:Sexual_orientation#Is_classified_as above.

§ I think I have to side with 204nnn on this one. Sexual orientation would seem, on the surface meaning of the word, to mean what your antennae rotate around to and follow. If one's sexual seeker points at an organism that has no external indication of its sex, what then? Maybe some people are turned on by earthworms, which happen to have both male and female sex organs. What then? What if somebody gets turned on by an anaconda? My guess would be that the person doesn't know and wouldn't care what its sex might turn out to be.

§ The original writers of this article may have narrowed the scope too far for two reasons: (1) Anything beyond "heterosexual," "homosexual," and "bisexual" may have been out of their range of experience. (2) As soon as you bring in the paraphilias, you reopen the issue of whether all atypical sexual orientations are paraphilias. P0M 03:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I think it's important to show both sides of this debate, so I added a note to the article. The article on paraphilia has a reasonable treatment of the full range of "alternative" sexual orientations, and it can be expanded/improved to taste. -- Beland 23:58, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. Sexual orientation is generally defined as a matter of relative gender (same, opposite, or both), not sexual expression in general. One could argue that intersexed people have different sexual orientation, but relationships with different species are not issues of sexual orientation per se. Issues of sexual freedom, certainly, but not orientation. --71.103.72.239 02:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fuzziness of gender and sexual orientation

So my answer to this recent controvery would be that gender is itself a "fuzzy" concept in certain ways. So sorting people into different classes based on the gender(s) they are attracted to simply carries forward this fuzziness. (See gender identity, gender role, sex, etc.) If someone has male DNA, genitals, is socially masculine, etc., then pretty much every who agrees that maleness exists agrees that they are male. But when not all of the typical gender indicators agree, different people may have different opinions about what "counts".

For the purposes of this article, it seems worthwhile to mention this fuzziness, and just put in a link to one or more of the above articles that explains the complications in-depth. -- Beland 10:01, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Maybe one of the things that needs to be clarified here is what terms apply to sex and what terms apply to gender. Part of the problem with talking about gender, for instance, is that some people created their own definitions of the term by reading it in context and deciding that it was intended as a simply euphemism for sex -- which wasn't the reason at all. The original distinction between male and female was almost certainly between animals that could father young (produce sperm) and animals that could produce ova and serve as the mothers of the young. Then by extension, and very naturally, one includes sexually immature but potential sperm and ova producers, etc.

Sex is a term that can be defined or explained in several ways, and there is an element of fuzziness even at this level. The traits that are ordinarily associated with sex are all subject to objective (intersubjective) verification, e.g., exact status of external and internal genitalia, chromosomal status, etc. Even so, there is a strong element of social construction involved in some uses of the term, as when a person whose body type (size, and whether the musculature has been made stronger by the masculinizing effects of male sex hormones) is female, but because of XY chromosomal status the Olympic authorities disqualify the individual from competitions with females. Except for the individual's inability to produce ova, the physiological characteristics are all essentially female, and many people would classify that individual as a woman.

Gender involves much more fuzziness, not the least most important reason being that some of the most salient characteristics are not currently subject to intersubjective verification. It may be that the feeling that one is a woman or is a man, the attraction that one feels toward primarily men or primarily women, etc., are all connected to brain structures that are in principle associated with objectively discernible brain structures. Researchers have been trying to measure the sizes and/or other characteristics of the brains of people with typical and atypical gender identities, but consensus has not yet been reached on the presence or absense of "markers" of gender identity in brain structures. So the component of "social construction" (and variety of opinions) becomes much more important in determining gender identities.

A further element of messiness is added when it is discovered that some individuals' sexual motivations appear similar to the most ordinary motivations of male or female humans but are directed toward non-human objects of attention or to a subset of human objects of attention (amputees, etc.). Furthermore, for some human beings sexual behavior is only strongly exhibited when in the presence of some special "releasers" of sexual motivation. For instance, some human males become sexually aroused primarily when they wear woman's clothing. Some humans become sexually aroused primarily when they are in the presence of other stimuli (fetish objects). The diversity of the releasers is great. It is a truism that even in "normal" love there is no accounting for human preferences.

Even at the most basic chromosomal levels and the most basic structural levels, nature does not break down into two simple and complementary categories. The fan-out beyond that point is tremendous. When asked by God to categorize Eve, Adam is reported to have said, "Eve looks more like a woman than anything else, to me." Things have never gotten any clearer. Language is "one way", but nature is inherently fuzzy. P0M 16:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

I guess you're using "gender" to mean "gender identity" and "sex" to mean "anatomical sex"? Sometimes "gender" and "sex" are just used to mean "all that stuff that has to do with determining maleness, femaleness, or otherness.) In any case, the article sex already has a handy chart of biological and psychosocial components. I'll update this article per my suggestion, and then we can take things from there. -- Beland 22:48, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Autosexuality

Does anyone else think autosexuality shouldn't be listed at the top? That list is currently gender based, and autosexuality is, by definition, not about gender. It's about as appropriate on a list of gender orientations as various paraphilias -- and while I don't have an opinion on whether or not things like paraphilias should be on that list, I'd rather it be consistent.

I'd just go remove it myself, but I already did that once, and someone put it back in.

Inkburrow 09:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I moved auto and asexuality to see all, someone please feel welcome to readd to the text appropriately. I remove pansexual as it redirected to bisexual, and I removed the not stating with no evidence that these are all well established terms. Hyacinth 09:56, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Autosexuality is a SUB-topic or sliver-group of a Common classification, Asexuality or possibly other orientations, however, it is not very common. Asexuals are said to make up 1 to 1.5% of the population and Autosexuals a small portion of that. Check out the Autosexuality article Talk Page for my reasoning as to why I feel this being put into the "Common classifications" Sexology box is out of place. This was a major jump to make this one of the major sexual orientations. TednAZ 19:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the terms to the section "Complexities and terminology" and added a note to the bottom of the list indicating the controversy over its inclusiveness. -- Beland 17:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sexual identity

The article sexual identity discusses male/female identity, not self-identification with respect to orientation. This is very confusing, and I would support changing titles around to make things more self-evident, because this is the second or third time I've found links that make that mistake. Part of the problem is that the underlying terminology is confusing; people use "sexual identity" for both. Maybe we want to do a disambiguation page at "Sexual identity", and put articles at "Sexual identity (gender)" and "Sexual identity (orientation)"? The latter could certainly use its own article instead of being shoehorned in here. -- Beland 06:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Scientific research

The following pages have interesting pointers to research on the determinants of sexual orientation:

• http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayscience.html
• http://www.welcome-committee.org/booklet-5-keener.html
• http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2003/02/article01-2.shtml
• http://www.gaysouthafrica.org.za/homosexuality/studies.asp

-- Beland 03:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Redundancy

Is it just me, or do the "orientation concepts," "psychological and sociological viewpoints," and "orientation as construct" sections tend to cover the same ground? It seems like they could be merged in places and trimmed in others to avoid repetition; the "orientation concepts" and "orientation as construct" sections, in particularly, seem like they ought to just be one section.

Inkburrow 09:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's still a lot of redundancy in this article, including word-for-word repetition of parts of the intro in the first section. BrianH123 06:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Major rewrite, but more work to be done

I just completed a major (but hurried) rewrite to deal with a lot of redundancy (both internally and with respect to other articles) and internal inconsistencies. I also made some improvements along the way, including the addition of some poll data. I'm sure there are mistakes in this new draft; corrections are of course encouraged.

This article needs serious resynchronization with its subarticles, especially:

• Homosexuality and morality
• Religion and homosexuality
• Terminology of homosexuality
• Demographics of sexual orientation
• Environment, choice, and sexual orientation
• Genetics and sexual orientation
• Kinsey Reports
• Sexual morality

The biggest thing to be done is to make sure there's no content in the parent article that's not in the main article. (By moving supporting details into the main article.) Also, each article that references the main article on a subtopic should summarize the referred article accurately, usually paralleling the structure of the main article (but filtered through the unique lens of the topic of the article in which the summary is written).

There's also a considerable amount of content that might be or already is duplicated across these four articles:

• Sexual orientation
• Homosexuality
• Heterosexuality
• Bisexuality

Even worse, I'm sure there are parallel portions that are either contradictory or at least out of sync. It would be nice to concentrate material in subarticles and share these across all four, with the aim of having one place for an in-depth discussion on each topic, rather than four different places, each with a slightly different spin and diverging claims and references. (Of course each article should introduce subtopics with a unique angle.)

There's also one paragraph marked as needing fact-checking, which I just didn't have the energy to get to.

The Pew report also has a lot of good information that should be added to the Wikipedia at some point. -- Beland 04:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Sexual behavior is a changeable choice?

In the section about clasification and boundaries one of the bullet points reads:-

Sexual behavior is a changeable choice, not a fixed attribute of identity by which one should be classified.

If this right? It seems wrong to me, I'd change it but I cant quite put my finger on what I think is wrong with it. [unsigned]

Sexual behaviour (ie, the decision on whether to have sex or not) is. Sexual orientation (ie, the gender of the person one is attracted to) is not. If one is a male attracted to females, or one is a male attracted to females, a female attracted to males or a female attracted to females, is not choice because attraction is subconscious. Whether that attraction is decided by nature (ie, one is born with it) or nuture (sexual socialisation experiences) remains unclear, though most studies suggest either a combination or nature alone.

Only extreme religious fundamentalists now believe the myth that someone can be 'cured' of whatever orientation they have, which is the basis for the nuture argument. It operates on the dubious principle that something went wrong in a child or pubescent adult's sexual socialisation and that that can be "fixed". In fact studies now find evidence of one's orientation existing far earlier than any socialisation experiences, increasingly undermining the nurture theory. It has been further undermined by the discovery of evidence of same sex attraction in animal species where there is no consciousness and so where no nurture experiences could have impacted.

Blech! Of course you're right about the general thing on the fundies and their homophobia. But what the heck does consciousness have to do with "nurture" (socialization)?! By this identical logic, we can conclude that birds do not learn particular birdsongs, but only sing the ones they are genetically programmed for. I think some ornithologists wouldn't be too happy by such bio-reductionism gone wild. (yeah, I know this doesn't matter for this article, but this particular crude failure of basic logic gnaws at my craw).

Interestingly, it seems to be mostly the bio-reductionists nowadays who talk most about "cures"... maybe gene "therapy" or hormonal "treatment" or something on those lines. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Cows for example are inherently bisexual. When a cow or heifer ovulates she her vagina gives off a distinct smell which immediately sexually arouses all members of the bovine family, male and female. Whichever one is nearest to her will immediately mount her and try to perform a sex act. Given that most cows now live in a single sex environment, with they either being fertilised using artificial insemination or through the introduction of a bull once ovuation starts, the sight of cows all jumping onto the back of one of their number in a frenzy of sexual excitement is the moment a farmer knows that a particular one in the herd is ovulating and needs to be fertilised. Studies have found same-sex experiences, sometimes exclusively same-sex experiences (with the object of the study having no sexual interest whatsoever in the opposite sex) throughout the animal kingdom.

As a kid I remember a local farmer's fury when he found that ram (male sheep) he had bought (very expensively!) to impregnate his ewes had absolutely no interest in the females of the species but wanted to ride the backside off the ram in the neighbouring farm. The ram kept breaking through fences, etc to get to the other ram who attracted him. However the other ram, being heterosexual, had no interest whatsoever in having gay sex with the first ram. The unfortunate gay ram ended up becoming lamb chops (ram chops?) when the farmer sold him to try to make some money back from his disastrous investment!!! FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

What is distinction?

What is the diference between the category "Sexual orientation" and the category "Sexual orientation and identity"? If none, they should probably be merged. Wuzzy 11:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sex vs. gender confusion

I think it's best for this article to acknowledge that sexual orientation can refer to the sexes that somebody is attracted to, the genders they are attracted to, or both. The articles about specific sexual orientations should also be inclusive, but it's particularly important that the main article about sexual orientation in general get it right. Catamorphism 06:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative, but I'm not convinced "gender" is right. Two different dictionaries I've looked at use "sex" only for the definition of "sexual orientation". (See dictionary.com. Not the best source, but do you have a competing one?) The primary use of gender in my experience is to refer to words (the gender of a noun in Spanish for example). I don't know what using the word "gender" here adds to the concept of sexual orientation. BrianH123 06:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Gender is not necessarily the same as sex. For instance, one's gender can be different to their sex and vice versa, of course. Thus it is relevant to describe one's orientation to whether attraction is based on gender or whether attraction is based on sex. As to your statement that I'm not getting into an edit war., I'm not going to either. But you made an earlier argument about consistency - bisexuality can use the word "gender" without confusion because a bisexual person is attracted to someone regardless of their sex. However we must describe sex and gender here since this is an article dealing with a broader scope. Correctness can override the need for consistency and should in this instance. Dysprosia 06:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I realize that gender is not the same as sex. My concern was that gender didn't apply but sex did. But I'll go with Catamorphism's explanation below, especially after reading the gender article which makes the distinction between biology and social construction. BrianH123 06:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've edited Bisexuality and Heterosexuality to be more consistent with the way sex/gender are used in this article. Feel free to improve on my edits! Catamorphism 07:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Is a gender-male sex-female who's attracted to the male gender and the female sex classified as bisexual, heterosexual, or homosexual? BrianH123 07:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Such a person would most likely self-identify as homosexual. Self-identification is the key, it may be "dangerous" for us to classify those who identify as something contrary to our classification. Dysprosia 07:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the purpose of an encyclopedia article though, isn't it, to state what these terms mean in an objective way? If the only way to know what someone's sexual orientation is to note how he identifies himself, then we can eliminate 99% of the text from bisexuality, heterosexuality, and homosexuality. The homosexuality article will boil down to "A homosexual is someone who identifies as homosexual." And when it comes to people who refuse to identify themselves, they won't have a sexual orientation. And if someone lies about what he is attracted to, we nevertheless take his word for it, even if a penile tumescence study shows otherwise. None of that seems satisfactory to me.

-- BrianH123 16:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the concept of NPOV is key here. We can explain what the definition of sexual orientation is that many people have traditionally used (based on attraction), as well as noting that people self-identify in ways that may not be consistent with that definition. Catamorphism 20:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

So you should, Cat's explanation is far superior to mine ;) Dysprosia 07:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions are not an authoritative source for a modern concept such as "sexual orientation". People who are familiar with LGBT issues and gender studies acknowledge that sex refers to the biological concept of being male, female, or intersex and gender refers to a person's gender role, which may or may not coincide with their sex. It's important to acknowledge, in the context of sexual orientation, that people may be attracted to people who fall into the male gender but not the male sex, to people who fall into the male sex regardless of those people's gender, or to people who fall into the male gender regardless of those people's sex (for example). Catamorphism 06:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The American Psychological Association defines "sexual orientation" in terms of sex, not gender. In particular it states that "bisexuals are attracted to both their own sex and the opposite sex." See here. The site mentions biological sex, gender identity, and social gender role, but specifically distinguishes them from sexual orientation and, again, defines the latter in terms of sex.BrianH123 21:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The APA's definition can't be considered to be the only definition, of course. Sure their viewpoint only refers to sex, but that doesn't mean we subsequently only have to refer to sex. In the interests of neutrality we should also provide views from other sources and thus adapt our descriptions as well. Dysprosia 02:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Improving article

Just letting others know that I have begun re-working that article and plan on doing some fairly major renovations. :) Hope i'm not stepping on any toes. There's mountains of published material on this subject and so little of it is reflected here; I hope to rectify that. Cheers and look forward to collaborating. ntennis 05:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's great to reword things for clarity and add more sources, just be careful you don't lose existing useful information (like the distinction between orientation and preference). Catamorphism 06:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Personally, I feel that point can be better made in the body of the article rather than in the lead section, but that discussion can wait until later... there's a lot to clean up here! ntennis 07:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

zoophilia & paedophilia

why are these orientations not included in the sidebar, why are they 'paraphilia', they are just as legitimate as male/ female preference, that is their 'sexual orientation' - nothing in that says to either male or female, it is just the direction or orientation of lust, regardless of public prejudice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.112.58.29 (talk)

They are not, it can still be oriented towards females or males and as such not a sexual orientation.KimvdLinde 03:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Are parts of this page mis-categorized?

This page, which is ostensibly about the term "sexual orientation" in general, focuses OVERWHELMINGLY on a single sexual orientation: male homosexuality. It barely discusses heterosexuality, the sexual orientation of the majority of people, at all.

In particular, I'm very disappointed in the lack of treatment of the history of the use of the term "sexual orientation." The page doesn't specify when the term was first used, or by whom--treating it as if it had always been a term in common usage when in fact it is of very recent coinage.

The "History" section of the page is ENTIRELY concerned with the history of male homosexuality, and refers mostly to cultures in which the term "sexual orientation" was unknown. I strongly feel that this section should be moved to a page about male homosexuality, and the "History" section should be replaced with a history of sexual orientation as such--that is, the origin and use of the term.

Of course, I realize that this being Wiki I should do something rather than just complaining. I'll be researching just such a history (I had hoped to research it on Wiki for my own purposes, but I guess I'll try elsewhere) and hope to have it up soon. Dybryd 18:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've looked through the page and fail to see an OVERWHELMING emphasis on male homosexuality, though I agree about the history section and have removed it. Can you specify which other sections concern you? ntennis 01:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I was overstating because the specific parts I looked at had the problem, and the biggest of those is now gone. However, I still would like to see a proper history of the term "sexual orientation" to replace the one cut. I know, I know--write it myself! Dybryd 09:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Homophobia is "Abrahamic"?

I'm curious about the passing note that it's "Abrahamic" religions that consider homosexuality unnatural or non-existent. Many religious and non-religious groups outside Christianity, Judaism, and Islam hold a similar view. For example, a former student of mine from a very traditional Taiwanese Taoist family told the story of being put through a sort of private "ex-gay" program by the family's Taoist teacher as a teenager, including prayer, cold baths, and herbs. Many Africans, including those from non-Muslim areas, assert that homosexuality is "Western" and doesn't exist in Africa. And so on.

I'm not sure what the easiest fix would be. Simply switching "Abrahamic" to "religious" wouldn't work because there are also secular ideologies that deny the existence or naturalness of homosexuality--for example in Communist China. Dybryd 09:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This idea, that Abrahamic religions are the sole origin of homophobia, has been a very pervasive myth on wikipedia. User DanB DanD edited the text to address your concern: see this diff. Thanks DanB DanD! ntennis 05:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Measuring an individual's sexual orientation

The text currently says:

A (homosexual) and B (heterosexual). A heterosexual individual may be A5, B0; a bisexual may be A3, B9; An asexual would be A0, B0; and someone with an intense attraction to both sexes would be A9, B9.

I think the A5, B0 for a heterosexual must surely be wrong (or else I'm missing something here.) Very very good article, otherwise. MacMurrough 00:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You are correct! Now fixed. ntennis 03:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact the Abrahamic religions have had a huge impact in the world, influencing all cultures! For example Japan was a homoerotic-friendly country before being invaded bt the Christian zealots who have tried to convert the population to Christianity. Even though they lost big-time in the 17th century, they still have had a major (unseen) victory: the introduction of homophobia in this country! This is also the case with India, before being occupied by moslems and even more before being occupied by Brits!

Homophobia is a seed that can bring fruits everywhere the society is organized in a highly hyerarchic way. Because homophobia is based on very simple tenets![ 99.161.129.93 (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)]

Autosexuality does NOT belong in the Sexual Orientation/Sexology's "Common classifications" box

Autosexuality is NOT a common sexual orientation... it belongs in the "Other classifcations" heading in the Sexual Orientation/Sexology box, not listed under the "Common classifications" heading. Autosexuality is a SUB-topical sexual orientation, most likely belonging under Asexuality - I'll let someone else do the research on that. I am a sexual creature and have no desire to research those who are not. According to the most recent sexuality research released from [ABC News], [CNN] and other media organizations, there are only FOUR major sexual orientations: Heterosexual, Homosexual, Bisexual and Asexual, albeit they said that Asexuals only make up 1 to 1.5% of the general poulation. Knowing those figures, how can Autosexuality be considered as common? Also, many Asexuals still have sex with themselves, so would that not make them somewhat Autosexual? Again, if Asexuals, considered one of the four major sexual orientations, make up only one percent of the population, then Autosexuals would make up a small sliver-like component of that select group which is something I liken to an analogy of the earth's atmospheric elemental components... 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, 1% Argon and then the rest is simply listed as 'other' gasses.

If you want to see unscientifically see just how common the term is... just type in any order "asexual sexual orientation" without quotes on a search engine. I did on Google and came up with 177,000 examples. Then, type in "autosexual sexual orientation" - again, in any order, not using quotation marks in the search window. On Google, I got 2,540 results or 0.01 of Asexual results. Shoot, I typed my first and last name (which is fairly uncommon) plus my city and state and produced way more results than that. That pretty much sums it all up and puts this sliver-group subtopical sexual orientation in its place, certainly not as a common classification. There are no sexuality textbooks or reference books, no published studies, no research statistics anywhere that classifies Autosexuality as a common sexual orientation. This is not in any way, shape or form meant to be an attack on someone who identifies as Autosexual, only that it does not belong in a major or common classification box on Wiki. It is generally accepted there are three or four major sexual orientation classifications, depending upon which research you adhere to, however, adding in other types as common, muddies the waters of sexuality and orientation of the LGBT community. My sexual orientation, bisexual (the 'B' in LGBT), using the same search criteria as above, produced 1,110,000 results, so that would mean Autosexual would have 0.00002 of that finding. Not so common, after all... is it? TednAZ 19:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

Shouldn't something be put in here right near the start of the article that many people for religious or other reasons only consider heterosexuality to be a normal and legitimate sexuality and consider all others to be mental disorders and perversions? This is a very popular opinion held by large numbers of people and I feel it needs to be strongly and promptly stressed!YourPTR! 19:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No. Why? — Coren ^(talk) 00:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

sex differences

One thing missing from this article is a discussion of how the nature of sexual orientation in men is different from the nature of sexual orientation in women. This question came up recently at the Wikipedia Reference Desk. A series of studies by researchers at Northwestern University and the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health looked at the sexual response of men and women on viewing various films of sexual activity; the findings in brief were that women tended to get aroused by all forms of sexual activity they were shown, regardless of their sexual orientation, whereas men's arousal depended on their sexual orientation (that is, heterosexual men got aroused by images of women, but not men, while homosexual men got aroused by images of men, but not women). Links:

• A Sex Difference in the Specificity of Sexual Arousal (peer-reviewed article in Psychological Science)
• press release (Northwestern University)
• The Chemistry of Desire (Time)
• Forbidden Science (Discover)

--Mathew5000 02:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Words Linked

Why are they in red? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.16.151.77 (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Section added -- Euro-American constructs

I don't want to start an edit war over this new section. I made edits because the assertions made in the original additon were overly broad and rife with POV. It is overly broad to say that all Europeans and Americans universally use the terms heterosexuality and homosexuality to identify a person's social, rather than sexual identity. Perhaps some do; but as American who lives in a city known for its wide diversity, I can tell you that I don't even know the sexual orientation of many people with whom I socialize, nor is that the first thing that I consider about their social identity. For many, sexual orientation is kept totally private, and so is completely separate from their social identity. The other sentence was excised not only for its poor grammar, but also for its clear POV: "The Euro-Americans have too much variation among its culture in what is a proper sexual orientation and what is not" -- too much according to whom? Other comments about this section? -- Sfmammamia 02:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Classifying Sexual Orientations

[quote]Many in the scientific community, and in society at large, classify persons according to their "sexual orientation" of "straight", "gay" ("lesbian"), "bi", or "transgendered."

This widely-held opinion misses the fact that a person's core self can never be reduced to what he or she is attracted to. For example, we do not scientifically reduce very short men and women by classifying them as "midgets" nor the mentally challenged as "retards."

Consequently, these respectful attitudes must be also shown to the GLBT-identified community as well. This can be done by affirming men and women in this community according to their true gender "selves" as simply "masculine" and "feminine" respectively.[/quote]

Wikipedia is not an editorial page; this entry introduces a blatant point of view. If there are no objections, I'm going to remove paragraphs two and three later today. Robotical 20:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point in deleting something. I would have liked to know who posted it, for he is saying something very valid. Perhaps, he doesn't know the Wikipedia rules, and perhaps what he is trying to say can be said by someone else through proper references. At least, we should be allowed to see such things. Such gross censorship is the way oppressive systems work. (Masculinity (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

... what an odd statement?

Is it just me, or is

Oddly enough, while a great deal of effort has been expended in the effort to investigate the supposed genetic basis for "homosexuality", there are no studies which would indicate (rather than presuppose) that "heterosexuality" (as distinct from biological "masculinization/feminization") has a genetic basis.

either nonsensical or self defeating?

Unless anyone ever argued that one could be independently homosexual and heterosexual, the cause of one is necessarily the cause of its opposite! — Coren ^(talk) 00:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What's It Called?

I have met several hundred girls in my lifetime who are attracted to gay men, knowing they're gay, & not wanting to be part of a threesome, but enjoying relationships voyeuristically. Men have similar things with lesbians, but usually want to be part of the action. In Japan, there are literary genres targeted at women with this orientation; Shounenai, BL (Boys Love), yaoi, & Syouta (shouta). These have, in recent years, started being translated into several languages & sold world-wide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.122.193 (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro

The opening line says sexual orientation "is the direction of an individual's sexuality." That seems to be more of a definition of sexuality than of sexual orientation. According to the APA, sexual orientation "is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others,"[3] not necessarily an expression of their sexuality. They commented "Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors." Since sexuality includes behavior, I think the intro should be reworded to fit the APA definition. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually a lot of the text equates sexual orientation to behavior. This isn't true. If I were a gay man, I can't become straight just by having sex with a girl. Orientation may influence behavior, but it is a separate issue.Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I say go ahead and change the introduction. As for the rest of the text you refer to, I'm not sure it's doing exactly that. Bring something here about that to clarify your concerns on that matter. It might be best that you tweak a little of it now. Although, waiting to see what other editors think is the ideal Wikipedia option out of those two. Flyer22 (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The text I'm referring to says "Most definitions of sexual orientation include a psychological component such as the direction of an individual's erotic desire) and/or a behavioural component (which focuses on the sex of the individual's sexual partner/s)." It's the or behavioral that I have problems with. That implies it could just be behavioral, which means all I have to do is switch my behavior and I switch my orientation. Joshuajohanson (talk) 04:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the "or" is meant to cover other historical periods, and other cultures, where sexuality was not experienced or conceived of the way we do. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the way in which sexuality is experienced or conceived have more to do with sexual identity than sexual orientation? I can see a man with a homosexual orientation getting married to a woman and changing his identity to be a heterosexual more easily than actually changing his underlining orientation.

My interpretation is that orientation is the underlining attraction, which doesn't vary substantially from culture to culture, whereas sexual identity is how we define ourselves given our interpretation of those attraction, which varies drastically from culture to culture. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

'Choice', also psychology

"Choice" section talks about 'public debate' and people saying sexual orientation can be chosen. That doesn't have to be black or white. For example I think there is genetic homosexuality but some can just choose to be gay or others may have psychological reasons from childhood. i.e. it can just be any of those reasons. There is nothing denying a person can be born gay genetically, or just choose to have an image of homosexuality or have a psychology that draws to homosexuality and there's nothing seeming fake about it (or a combination). Life is not as simple as some try to portray. --Leladax (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

i fully agree with your last sentence, but do not know if i agree with the rest because frankly I am not sure what you are saying. There is no compelling evidence that sexual orientation is genetically determined. However, even if it were, it does not mean people could not choose (I am making a point about genetics, not sexual orientation. my point is that people who inherit certain features make choices about them all the time, like changing one's hair color, which is entirely inherited). More importantly, it sounds like you think that genetic causes are exclusive of environmental causes. that is not true. Height, for example, is determined in part by genes and in part by environment. Moreover, "environmental" causes are not chosen. That component of height that is environmentl is sledom the result of the individual's choices. Moreover, there may be personal traits - even sexual orientation - that could be 100% the result of environment and nevertheless something over which an individual has no choice. In short, genetics does not mean "no choice," and environment 9or nurture) does not mean "total choice." Slrubenstein | Talk 17:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

homosexuality

I removed this because i think it is false: "The reasons for this are not, however, strictly due to scientific advances but political and philosophical changes as well. Following significant pressure from homosexual advocacy groups," Can anyone provide a reliable source for this? My unerstanding of event sis as follows: there never was any scientific evidence that homosexuality was a mental disorder. Any pressure by Gay Rights groups on the APA was 'not to change their scientific standards to follow political winds. On the contrary, the "political" pressure was for the APA simply to stick to the scientific evidence." The entry here implied that protests against DSM were intended to pressure the APA to compromise on its scientific standards. I'd like to see a reliable notable source for this claim Slrubenstein | Talk 23:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

male/female sexualities

Does te article, per chance, include not only the 4 main branches of sexual orientation, but the fact that for each sexual orientation there is a further difference between male and female sexual identity? For example, a bi-sexual pre-operative transexual may abstain from Sex for being uncomfortable in the way in which sexual acts may be performed and the perceptions of any given sexual partner. Sexual identity is not just about whether one prefers men or women, but the means of sexual interaction within that orientation also.

It appears to include just about everthing else and the kitchen sink, and is in rather dire need of a cleaneup - it's about as clear as mud... particularly the lead.

Crimsone (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Orientation versus Preference

I've started a poll on merging Sexual preference into a section of this one which has been discussed (done?) before. Comments on the proposal should be made on that article's talk page at the link above to avoid getting lost in the long comments about this page. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  23:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This topic requires further addressing. Certain articles on Wikipedia link to sexual orientation and sexual preference referring to them as separate things. I think the writers of these articles do not know about this merge. It may not be appropriate at all. They are separate issues. A 'preference' can be a conscious thing, and an 'orientation' can be an unconscious thing. Tyciol (talk) 06:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Undid recent edit

I have undone a recent edit to this article by someone claiming to be Chandler Burr. It presented his own point of view on sexual orientation as fact, and used one of his own books as a source too. What tacky self-promotion. Skoojal (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone recently restored Burr's self-promoting propaganda to this article. I will continue undoing that as long as I am able, and I will be happy to give detailed justifications for doing so. Just for starters, I'll point out that an out-of-date book about sexual orientation written for a popular audience more than a decade ago is not a good source. Skoojal (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

gender role???

I don't care what "gender role" you pretend to have, if the person (or whatever) your "focusing on" w is of the same gender, its not heterosexuality. Sam [Spade] 05:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

§Just to check my understanding, Sam, you are saying that if a person of masculine gender (but female external genitalia) is sexually turned on by another person of masculine gender (and with male external genitalia), then it is homosexuality? Whereas, if a masculine person (with female external genitalia) is turned on by a feminine person (regardless of whether that person's external genitalia are male or female), then it is heterosexual interest?

§ The whole issue is cockeyed as far as I'm concerned. The courts are satisfied if the external genitalia are complementary, no? Why do you oppose the courts on this one? ;-) P0M 03:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Care to be more specific about what you're railing against here? Exploding Boy 05:43, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Sam, all roles are pretend, there is no reason to point it out in this situation except to insult. Hyacinth 05:46, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I see. He removed a reference to "gender role" from the text of the article (check the page history). The problem seems to be that he doesn't fully understand homosexuality or the concept of gender roles. Exploding Boy 06:01, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

§ Sam or 204nnn?

Maybe you don't understand the concept of heterosexuality? It is when a person is sexual (or intends to be, etc..) w a person who has bone fide opposite gender genitalia (oft imitated, never reproduced). Did you think of that? ;)

Sam [Spade] 21:22, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

§ Yikes, I thought I had your position figured out. (See above.) Why did you change already? So if a a person of masculine gender (but female external genitalia) is sexually turned on by another person of masculine gender (and with male external genitalia), then it is not homosexuality?

Oh, right. So if a heterosexual person "is sexual (or intends to be, etc..)" with a post-operative transsexual, for example, then that person is gay? The point is, Sam, you have an inherent bias that just won't go away. Combine that with your penchant for oversimplification, and, well, you create a lot of extra work. Exploding Boy 01:52, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Waaaaaaaanh! I AM LOOSING MY PATIENTS! >:() Sam [Spade] 01:55, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That is absurd! You mean to say that if someone has a dog's head transplanted onto their body, then someone having sex with that person is committing bestiality?

§ My patients all climbed over the wall and are now consorting in the cactus garden at a certain well-known institution. ;-)

§ To be serious for a moment, in the midst of all the sources of hilarity, it may well make a difference whether the lover knows whether the beloved is someone who was born with a dog's head or whether s/he is of such an audacious nature as to have drastically altered his/her body configuration. People are attracted to the totality of what people perceive in other people. That is what makes the idea of a love map very valuable. If a heterosexual guy is attracted to a woman who manifests other attributes once they get into a motel room, does that make him a homosexual? If a homosexual guy is attracted to an andromimetic without realizing that the individual is an andromimetic, does that make him straight? What about a heterosexual guy who is attracted only to people whom he knows to be andromimetic? What does that make him? P0M 03:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sam appears to have used the word "gender" in his initial comment instead of "physical sex". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.253.104.170 (talk) 08:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Genetics and Homosexuality (moved from article)

There are logical arguments for both sides, a few of which are described below.

===="Reduced Gene Pool"====

The Argument of Reduced Gene Pool states that since homosexuality is a behavior 
that does not promote reproduction, it is self destructive and cannot be genetic.  
Practically all animal species (including humans) continue to live and thrive 
generation after generation because of reproduction between a male and a female 
of the species.  Assuming increased homosexual behavior would lead to decreased 
heterosexual behavior and thus fewer offspring, the likelihood of homosexuals 
passing on their theoretical genes is also decreased.  

===="Either Or"====

The Argument of Either Or states that humans have genetic directions to reproduce 
(meaning have sex with the opposite sex), and that if that genetic information 
was somehow damaged or turned off, it would not necessarily direct the human to be 
attracted to the same sex.  It is irrational to say that humans are either 
heterosexual or homosexual.  Since sex genes are there to promote reproduction, 
they may be turned off altogether as in an asexual person, but would not 
attract the person to the same sex arbitrarily.

Inkburrow 20:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is original research, in fact the mainstream position holds that homosexuality is of an evolutionary benefit. 207.224.198.170 20:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The most recent "mainstream" theories seem to lean toward the idea that homosexuality is a non-beneficial side-effect of a mutation that has other evolutionary benefits. But it's my understanding that there is no broad scientific consensus, and there is still lots of evidence yet to be gathered. I've never heard it called the "Reduced Gene Pool" argument, but it's far from novel. In fact, I think of it more as the starting point for the whole question - how do we reconcile what evolutionary biology tells us shouldn't occur, with what we actually observe? In any case the article Genetics and sexual orientation explains this argument and goes on to talk about various explanations and findings reported so far. The "either or" argument is actually a rather interesting one. I mean, it poses an interesting question - why would a malfunctioning gene cause a phenotype like this? It's not very convincing to say "human genetics couldn't possibly malfunction in this particular way". Especially since half of the species "should" be female-attracted and the other half male-attracted...one could easily imagine some confusion in the mechanism that determines that, and indeed many modern theories on the origins of homosexuality look as such possibilities. (See Environment, choice, and sexual orientation.) I would be interested to know if there are any serious scholars advocating this "either or" theory, for it would make an interesting addition to our coverage. I've read elsewhere that other editors doubt that this is the case. -- Beland 07:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

For the record, the cited source for "Either Or Argument" was: Ridley, Matt. Genome. New York: Perennial, 2000. ISBN 0060932902. (Don't know about the other one.) -- Beland 04:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The current Genes section of Influences on Sexual Orientation blatantly ignores NPOV, singling out one study and ignoring all contradictory research. It implies that the study of genetic influence on homosexuality has reached a definitive conclusion, which is far from the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.166.136 (talk) 02:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Out of date information?

The article reads, 'For example, the United States Department of Defense still lists homosexuality as a mental disorder.' I believe this is no longer the case; this needs to be reviewed and removed if it is inaccurate. Skoojal (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment moved from article

"We're totally forgetting pansexuality, a little-known deviation from bisexual that includes trans and androgynous humans, not just the male female binaries of bisexuality."

Technically, pansexuality refers too being (potentially - per the usual homo/hetero/bi thing) attracted to anything human, regardless of sex, gender or [i]anything[/i] else... the fact that somebody is human is enough. Crimsone (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Missing information: Who coined the term "sexual orientation" and when?

This is basic information that should be in the article. I'd be interested to learn the answer. Skoojal (talk) 08:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A bit heavy on the homosexual side

Many of these sections only have to do with homosexuality (like Pathological model of homosexuality, The boundary between friendship and homosexuality, and Legal issues). Many of the other sections are predominately about homosexuality, like the section on Queer theory and Homosexuality and transgender. Do they belong here? Can we move it to a page specifically about homosexual orientation, or to the homosexuality page? Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well don't be so surprised - when people talk about research into sexual orientation, they are often mean homosexuality, so this is what might be expected. Personally, I would expect an article about sexual orientation to focus more on homosexuality, and I don't necessarily consider this a bad thing. Skoojal (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is (and it is a problem) that when talking about, reasearching, or otherwise investigating sexual orientation, heterosexuality is seen as the "norm" - that which doesn't need explanation because it just is. As a result, study tends to concentrate on that which at least appears to be less common, being homosexuality, and less so, bisexuality. The article is merely a reflection of the nature of the subject. I say it's a problem as I believe that in order for science or academia to truly understand something, then both heterosexuality and homosexuality should be investigated equally (for example, you often hear people question what the cause/pathology/origin of homosexuality is, but rarely here the same questioned of heterosexuality)... this naturally leads to undue weight in a subject on the (apparently) smaller incidence. That said - not even the most even handed of scientists is completely free of standard assumptions. Crimsone (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Still, shouldn't things that only have to do with homosexuality go on the homosexuality page? Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In my view, probably not. The homosexuality article is much too long, and most of the stuff about scientific research on sexual orientation there belongs in different articles. Skoojal (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

template discussion

Can folks please have a look at Template_talk:Sexual_orientation#template POV problems and offer your thoughts? I would really like to get the template on this page cleaned up, but I can't do it unilaterally.

Dybryd (talk) 05:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Vague Claims

The article reads, 'Some scholars of sexology, anthropology and history have argued that social categories such as heterosexual and homosexual are not universal.' Who are these 'some scholars', and what is the use of mentioning what they think if their names are not mentioned so that people can find out the specifics? Skoojal (talk) 04:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That was put in a long time ago simply to add much needed NPOV. You are of course right. I am personally in a very busy time right now and while I could add citations I do not have the time right now to put together the best ones. Would you mind just adding a needs citations tag and let it be until I have time in a couple of months, or others can add the cites? I'd appreciate it. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Sexual Orientation is Unacceptable

The article reads, 'Sexual orientation is "an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction as a whole."' This is a vague and utterly unacceptable definition. It is not even a proper, grammatical sentence. It is also not supported by the APA source, and as such it cannot be used here. Skoojal (talk) 08:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sexual Preference VS Sexual Orientation

Sexual Preference currently links to this article. Sexual preference is a different concept from sexual orientation. Someone could have a homosexual sexual orientation, but for social / religious / whatever reason prefer to be have opposite-sex partners. If there is not enough information for an entire article on sexual preference the current article should be cleaned up a little to have a section for discussing the differences between the terms for anyone who is using them interchangeably.

J-D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.87.112.76 (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

General definition

Maveric149 recently reverted the article to a previous form. This had two consequences: it changed the introduction to the article, and the organization of the article. I agree with Maveric149 that the reverted structure is an improvement. I do not agree that the reverted introduction is an improvement. As a matter of fact, I changed it before and included an explanation, which M perhaps did not notice.

My explanation was, a general definition should precede a specific definition. If the article were "Sexual Orientation in the United States" Or "...in the West" the reverted opening would be appropriate. But if the article is meant to describe a general human phenomena (of course, the article could include sexual preference among other species, but it doesn't and I have no objection to that!) then the opening should be inclusive and general, and not provide a culture-bound definition. SR

Now I understand what you were trying to accomplish. However, you did also replace the research section with an older version at the same time you changed the intro para. An hour before that I had replaced the "3 - 7 %" figure with one that broke down to numbers for males and females -- since the percentages are very different and really useless as a combined percentage. I also liked the other intro para better -- but I can understand why it was replaced by a more inclusive statement. However, this is the English wikipedia and somebody can make a very good argument that the more specific definition is the most valid. --maveric149

Well, I hope it is all sorted out, now -- I am sorry if I erased the details you added, and I hope my last change didn't do it again. As for my criteria for the definition, I hope you notice that I added a sentence to the first paragraph mentioning specific orientations in our society (for the reason you mention). Still, I think it is important that the overal framework be neutral -- not just personally or politically, but culturally.

BTW what is a "queer sexual orientation"? Google only finds 22 hits on this term. I've never heard anyone argue for such a lable in anything more than a colloquial sense of the term -- as a kind of shorthand for Lesbigay or GLBT. I've never heard of this term being used in the context of describing an actual thing, such as a true sexual orientation as defined by psychologists. Just wondering. --maveric149

Well, I did put the term back in but I do not think I was the one who initially introduced it. But I reinserted it because there are many non-scholars who are questioning the cultural conventions -- and by this I don't just mean concerning specific behaviors, but the language people use too.

You do raise an interesting distinction -- "as defined by psychologists." Right now I don't think the article is very clear about the differences between the approaches or views of different academic disciplines. Perhaps this is a good idea, to go into this.

But there are two things I object to: first, that there are "true" sexual orientations, unless you mean "true" in a purely subjective sense (like, "it is true that I am attracted to, and sleep with, only x"). Whether these "orientations" are permanent, exclusive orientations or mere preferences, firmly rooted in biology, or socially constructed, is at best a matter of debate. Second, although I value psychological research on the matter, psychological research is neither the only nor the ultimate arbiter of what these categories are.

I am glad you caught my earlier mistake, which cut important information from the article. I think the more information, both empirical and theoretical, in the article, the better. But I think it is equally important to frame the article in a way that limits the discussion. In other words, to start out saying there are three (or four or five) sexual orientations at best reflects either one society's conventions, or one theoretical position. This is why I prefer to start with a more general statement, and then say something like "In society x there are n sexual orientations," or "according to research done by y there are n sexual orientations." SR

Asexuality. There is no mention of Asexuals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality

Paraphilias. Some definitions of sexual orientation include all paraphilias.

The definition of sexual orientation is often tied to anti-discrimination laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.27.253 (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"Important info removed"

ResolvedCame to consensus. --cooljuno411 06:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the unattributed direct quote to the APA (which is retained appropriately in the "|quote=" field of the footnote), and sharpened the statement attributed to the planned parenthood site. Exactly what important info did I remove? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Both statements are need. One talk about "using other labels or none at all". And the other says the current 3 tier system is "too simple". Two different statements. I will try and scale it down, and post it here to see what you think.--cooljuno411 04:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Try this:

Sexual orientation refers to "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes." According to the American Psychological Association "it also refers to an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them." Sexual orientation is usually classified according to the sex or gender of the people who are found sexually attractive, and is therefore usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual. However, the most common forms of sexual orientation exist along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality (being sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex) to exclusive homosexuality (being sexually attracted to members of the same sex) and includes various forms of bisexuality (being sexually attracted to members of either sex). Nevertheless, this linear scale too is seen as an oversimplification of a more nuanced notion of sexual identity, including, for instance, those who label themselves as non-heterosexual or of undefined sexuality.

-- siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

And my edit:

Sexual orientation refers to "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes." According to the American Psychological Association "it also refers to an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them." Sexual orientation is usually classified according to the sex or gender of the people who are found sexually attractive, and is therefore usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual. These orientations exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexual to exclusive homosexual, including various forms of bisexuality in-between. "However, some people may use different labels or none at all. Some sexologists see this linear scale as an oversimplification of a more nuanced notion of sexual identity.

--cooljuno411 04:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This one is not acceptable because the wording "However, some people may use different labels or none at all" is taken directly from the source. It would be better to incorporate this into the lead in a manner that did not require the use of a direct quote. Also, I don't like the use of the phrase "some sexologists" here. There is broad consensus among psychologists that the Kinsey scale is an oversimplification. This isn't something limited to the opinions of only some sexologists. If it were, then such speculations would not belong in the lead anyway. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It would not be Plagiarism since you source it. To be Plagiarism, means you take the idea and call it yours. And we can always remove the "some"... The "However, some people may use different labels or none at all" i feel needs to be directly stated, and not passively sipped in as your edit. It has to be clearly stated "not everyone uses these 3 identities"--cooljuno411 04:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC) To go along with your point made about "some":

Some sexologists see this linear [contiuum] scale as an oversimplification of a more nuanced notion of sexual identity.

contiuum placed in brackets to indicate adding a word.--cooljuno411 04:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

At some point, at any rate, there were not quotes around this snippet. I still object to having unattributed quotes in the text. By attribution I mean that in the text, a direct quotation must be specifically attributed to whomever said it. As in, according to Shakespeare: "There are more things in heaven and earth... than are dreamt of in our philosophy." This was, I should say, a problem in the former lead as well. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well then what should we say that, as i said before, clearly states that some people use other labels or none at all?--cooljuno411 04:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As in my proposed: "this linear scale too is seen as an oversimplification of a more nuanced notion of sexual identity, including, for instance, those who label themselves as non-heterosexual or of undefined sexuality." Also note that we shouldn't have wikilinks inside of direct quotes. So if the passage in question is to be quoted directly, interpretive wikilinks should not be inserted into it. Rather it seems better to state plainly what the inserter of these links had in mind, and thus also avoid WP:Easter eggs. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The statement by the APO, if referenced, still entails who said it and where it came from, so i don't see any issue of it being unattributed. Especially, the fact that we are not quoting a direct person, but an information article. Information books, for example on religions, ussually have all the reference in the back, and markings similar to wikipedia (these markings[1))--cooljuno411 04:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The statement you made has an issue, it is synthesizing the statements, which makes it original research. --cooljuno411 05:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How about:

However, some people may use other labels, or none at all, to identify their orientation.

or some variation of that. (and include the wikilinks i didn't yet add) --cooljuno411 05:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If my statement is original research, then it is best to leave the wikilinks out of it I think. (See my latest edit to the article.) Concealing a wikilink behind an ostensibly supported statement in order to imply something else is equally original research to stating openly the thing. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not original research to add a link to a quote, let alone a paraphrase which i suggest. What makes your statement original research is the fact that you combine them and change there original meanings. I say lets just paraphrase the APO statement if you don't want quotes, but we can not combine the APO and PPhood statements. What would you suggest a we say, preferably some that we can just slide in place, and not have to rewrite the whole paragraph--cooljuno411 05:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is generally against WP:MOSQUOTE to add wikilinks to quotes (PERIOD). And it is certainly against other policies to add links (such as the link different labels) which interpret the quote, rather than simply link bare terms within it. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well then, like i said, lets paraphrase it. I can understand removing the link non-heterosexual (for other labels), but i think undefined sexual orientation clearly fits with "none at all". So what do you think would be a good paraphrase for the "however,... other labels... non at all".--cooljuno411 05:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this:

Sexual orientation' refers to "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes." According to the American Psychological Association "it also refers to an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them." Sexual orientation is usually classified according to the sex or gender of the people who are found sexually attractive. Though people may use other labels, or none at all, sexual orientation usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual. These orientations exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexual to exclusive homosexual, including various forms of bisexuality in-between. Some sexologists see this linear scale as an oversimplification of a more nuanced notion of sexual identity.

--cooljuno411 05:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC) My proposal get the job done. It (1)shortens the article, (2)doesn't use a quote, as you said you don't want, (3) and doesn't synthesize statements.--cooljuno411 06:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this seems reasonable to me. Go for it. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, did it. Happy we got the job done : ]. And, though it still says "Some sexologists" in the version right above, i was sure remove the "some" as we discussed. I just forgot to do it here.--cooljuno411 06:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Affectional orientation

Hmmm, I had not heard of "affectional orientation" before just now reading it here, but I did a search in Google, and there it is. I have to say, though, that I find that term much more obfuscating than "sexual orientation". For one thing, people feel affection all the time for their parents, children, pets, friends--none of which have anything to do with sexuality, and it has nothing to do with "affectional orientation" as described here. (A cat-loving pet owner's affectional orientation would be towards cats, while a dog-loving pet owner's affectional orientatin would be towards dogs. But of course, that's not what they mean.) Anyway, it seems to me that "romance" is a component of sexuality, not vice versa. But that's just my opinion.

I agree. I'm just reporting that it exists. --Dmerrill

Both "affectional orientation" and "sexual orientation" are incorrect and misleading. The right term should have been GENDER ORIENTATION because it includes romantic (sexual) attraction as well as emotional attraction. "Sexual orientation" is incorrect because it mistakenly implies that attraction is purely sexual. "Affectional orientation" is incorrect because it mistakenly implies that attraction is non-sexual. Пипумбрик (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with last point. Most (straight) men i know are predominately in affectionate relationships with other men, with orientation toward women always having a sexual component and usually monogamous. A straight married men with only male friends is still straight, even if in terms of numbers and gender his "affectional orientation" and "gender orientation" is predominantely towards men. Sex may be crass, but which gender you prefer to do it wih is still the defining characteristic of these orentations.Yobmod (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Resolved

 – Merge completed, new section looks good. -- Banjeboi 15:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Perceived sexual orientation was created as Sexual orientation profiling and later renamed and initially tweaked a bit but remains largely unsourced and poorly written. I looked for sources myself and it was a stretch. These alone are not reasons to delete or merge but the very short article's content could just as easily be condensed and summarized here which is a good reason. With more experienced editors interested in this subject I think it's more likely to remain within policy as well. If sourcing and content is introduced and a section grows from this then a separate article may be justified. At this point there is only one sourced sentence that actually addresses the subject. I applaud efforts to clarify these subjects but Perceived sexual orientation seems to be doing more harm than good. Merge until the content can justifiably be a good separate article. -- Banjeboi 20:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support merger as nominator. -- Banjeboi 20:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, think it is credible enough for it's own article. Don't tell me that people don't assume other people's sexual orientation. That is just silly to say you can't find anything.... it happens everyday... I think it should be expanded, not merged. This article (sexual orientation) is already quite long anyways.--cooljuno411 23:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC) And, if you look at Template talk:Sexual orientation, it has been voted by the majority for perceived sexual orientation to be added to the template. BanjiBoi being one of the few opposers.... SEE AN AGENDA?--cooljuno411 23:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the bad faith accusations but no, we don't keep articles because people assume other people's sexual orientation, we keep them because the subject is not only notable, but verifiable and written well. That article is lacking and merging it seems like the best way to ensure the content grows as sourcing and notability are verified. And this article is just 40k gross which is not that large actually. The one sourced sentence or possibly all seven sentences would hardly impact this article at all. -- Banjeboi 05:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment... At first reading of the two articles my impression was that they should be merged. Then I did some Google searches, and found that there are many sources for "perceived sexual orientation", as separate from the main topic of "sexual orientation" even on Google Scholar. One aspect that seems relevant is that there are some sources discussing the effect of the perception of sexual orientation on the way people interact, or on the way organizations or institutions interact with individuals. I haven't researched the sources in detail yet, so I'm not recommending either merge or not-merge at this point. Meanwhile, I thought it might be helpful to note that there are references for the separate term in case anyone wants to explore them to help with this decision. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd be surprised though if those didn't actually all support the main article just fine. To be clear I think the concept is valid just that it can rest in the main article until it's actually written coherently and well-sourced. If perceived sexual orientation is that notable certainly a subsection should be in the main article even if it's just a summary. Looking at that article it's not even a good summary unless you removed a few sentences to more logical places in the main article. -- Banjeboi 09:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
    • You may be right about that, that's why I did not "oppose", and just entered a comment since I was still considering what's best. I'll give this some more thought and enter my recommendation soon. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm convinced based on the various points that have been raised since I entered my initial comment, support merge. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support Regardless of Google search results, it all falls into sexual orientation. I'm just using Cooljuno's own argument here. He says that the Perceived sexual orientation article belongs in the Sexual orientation template because it's a sexual orientation. Indeed. The small bit that can be said about Perceived sexual orientation can be, and should be, a subsection within the Sexual orientation article. I mean really, we can't have it both ways. ;] - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 20:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • No, i don't want it in the template as an orientation. Did you actually read the talk on the sexual orientation template?, or did you just point and shoot? I want perceived sexual orientation in a "see also" section of the template. And regardless of google scholar searches? Then why don't we just merge homosexual, non-heterosexuals and all related articles... Cause they are "subsection within the Sexual orientation"... RIGHT?--cooljuno411 21:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Semantics my friend. Whether it's in a "see also" section within the template, or in a section of its own within the template, you still want it in the template. Just using your own argument here. As to your other fiction, homosexual encompasses 1 single sexual orientation where as non-heterosexuals can be anything from homosexual to bisexual to pansexual. Anything else I can help you with? - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 03:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support merging for now. It is nice to know there is a body of scholarly literature on perceived orientation that editors can draw on to expand the article. If the article on sexual orientation grows to be too big at that point we can discuss rational ways to divide it up. Right now I think we need to provide readers with a framework for understanding different views on and approaches to sexual orientation, one that includes the material on perceived orientation and other views/approaches. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support merging. I don't see how having both as separate articles serves the educational purposes of either article well. (a) Wikipedia isn't a dictionary to define particular terms, this does not need its own article when it fits better as a section in parent article. If section becomes too large in future, it can be spinned off. (b) Article creator should not take merger personally, as being a top-level section in such a high-traffic article actually will get more eyes on the topic (learning from and contributing to), than having it in its current form. (my 2 cents...) Outsider80 (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support merge. Are there any actual, rather than "perceived", sources suggesting that this deserves its own article? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support merge. I think there must be sources from people who have studied why we have preconceptions about how people of different orientations act, but even with their addition, this would still be more helpful to readers if it is derectly in the main article. Could make a good section there, but the current stub is quite useless: It is not worth making almost-orphaned child articles with so little data, make a section and only splin it off when it has grown. All it does now is explain (unsourced) the meaning of a neologism that can be deduced by anyone with basic English skills.Yobmod (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support merger Perceived sexual orientation is a very brief article as it stands now, and the material certainly fits with that of the main topic. It should be discussed. As there needs to be at least a summary in this article, I see no need for a separate article (even if this appears to contradict my previous "vote" at the template discussion). Aleta ^Sing 20:57, 3 February 2009 (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.

Pedophilia as sexual orientation

Pro-pedophile activism is a small fringe movement that was most active from the 1950s to the early 1990s and is now maintained mostly through several websites. [4][5] One of its goals—summed up by supporter Frits Bernard—is advocating the acceptance of pedophilia as a sexual orientation rather than a psychological disorder. ADM (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been wondering about that too. Are pedophilia, necrophilia, Ephebophilia, Hepephilia, zoophilia, etc., all sexual orientations? It seems as though sexual orientation is simply an attraction... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 00:10, 21 May 2009 (talk) 69.234.208.243

Those paraphilias are not sexual orientations in medical usage or in common usage. The first sentence of this article clearly states that sexual orientation is "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, both or neither." This is its usage by the American Psychological Association and other mainstream organizations. Obviously, the difference is that in all these cases the partners are not consenting, phenotypically normal adult human partners. Therefore, sexual orientation is limited to three categories: Heterosexual, Bisexual, and Homosexual. This is not in dispute. Fortuynist (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget asexual. :) LadyofShalott 04:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No reliable sources define pedophilia as a sexual orientation. Pedophile advocacy groups that want to change laws about child sexual abuse do not qualify as reliable sources for a scientific article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Malleability

A google scholar search for "sexual fluidity" turns up almost exclusively stuff from Lisa Diamond. Is there more to this, or is she isolated in this view? Klein's work all seems to be pretty old now. Is anyone familiar with the current state of the literature on this topic? Agathman (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That term might be specific to Lisa Diamond, but there are other people coming to similar conclusions, even if they aren't using the same words. The CNN report that you deleted quoted from Bonnie Zylbergold, J. Michael Bailey, Lisa Diamond and "a 2004 landmark study at Northwestern University." They concluded that "a new line of research is beginning to approach sexual orientation as much less fixed than previously thought." It isn't just Lisa Diamond. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is this article sounding like LGBT activism without regard to facts or balance

The text on fluidity of sexual orientation is inundated with how it is fixed and that no attempts should be made to change it. The LGBT concerns can be accomodated under a separate heading, why must the continuity and relevance of the articles be tampered with? Similarly, the section on 'sexual orientation, identity and behavious is inundated with how homosexual males can be masculine, feminine, etc." With this large inundation with western LGBT pov, very little space is given to the non-western pov and whatever is given is heavily distorted. Please get some balance into this. (122.162.167.96 (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

Like proponents of alternative medicine and associated quackery, you are conflating scientific with "Western". That sexual orientation is immutable has been established by the best procedures of study; the only people who argue that it is changeable are religious extremists that are willfully ignorant about the subject. There is also no getting around that attempts to change ones' sexual orientation are damaging, from the medieval methods used to the underlying assumption that heterosexuality is the most preferable sexual orientation. What, if not the diversity of the sexual orientations possible, would you like the article to cover? Heterosexuality, and then all the rest in a small subheading? Fortuynist (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ethics

I feel this article is dodging the ethical elements necessary to understand the subject well. I can find Nietzschean assumptions in talk of deconstruction, what McIntyre would call "Encyclopedist" or modernist attempts to present facts and rights as self-evident, and a constant defence against virtue based approaches to sexuality. This article would really benefit from clear explanations as to how different ethical starting points give different moral conclusions, and that these starting points can often be found in different traditions of enquiry. The nature of the debate is the most bewildering aspect of talk about sexual orientation. By making clear how the different arguments work, we are informing people not just of conclusions, but also of process. Any thoughts? Hyper3 (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Choice

I have a problem with the line "purely a matter of choice." My problem is not that this may or may not be one cause (or justification) for sexual orientation, my problem has to do with what we mean by the word "choice"

Let me start with a personal and individual example, just to make clear that what I am talking about doesn't have to do with homosexuality or heterosexuality as such.

Let's say my "prefered sexual partner" (we can call her my wife, if you want) is Veronica. I love her and married her and the sex is fine, but in fact when I first met her I wasn't terribly attracted to her. In fact, there is still this woman Betty I find a lot more attractive.

Now, maybe I didn't marry Betty because she doesn't want me. But I would rather say that although I find her really attractive, she has other qualities I cannot stand.

SO this is an example where you could say my "prefered sexual partner" was decided by "choice." It is not just that I chose between Betty and veronica, I made such a choice based on a calculation of several considerations, including how attracted I was to whom.

Do you see the problem? To say that Veronica is my prefered sexual partner by choice is true, but it just erases any consideration of the fact that I still find Betty more attractive. Why do I find Betty so attractive? I don't know! I just do!

To say that I chose Veronica by "choice" does not really explain "why" she is my prefered sexual partner, it just identifies a conscious process -- one that involved (but does not explain) unconscious variables (like, wow, Betty is really hot!)

I realize you may think I am just rejecting reason three and arguing that reason two is always true or the most plausible. I am not. What I am saying is that in most of the choices we make, choice names the last step in a process that almost always includes a lot of other things besides choice. Maybe I am rejecting three in favor of two, I don't know. But I hope you all see that I am not doing it because I have some strong theory on why people are gay or straight, it has to do with a more general concern I have about using the word "choice" as if that explains anything. -- SR

The big issue about choosing and sexual orientation is that moralists criticize homosexuals for being sinful, while gay rights activists defend homosexuals. The defense takes many forms. Deconstruction, as in today's version of the article, makes it a non-issue on the grounds that we merely invented the concept (or something like that). The term homophobic blames the moralists for irrationality or hatred. New translations of the scriptures promote the view that the Bible never condemned homosexuality: we've all been reading it wrong. If they were to acknowledged homosexuality as a sin, they'd be obliged to find a way to repent of it, same as thieves, drunkards, or wife-beaters.

Given this perspective on homosexuality and gay rights, I find it an immense challenge to stick to the NPOV when editing wikipedia articles. My goal is to stick to what is factual and relevant and not to "infect" articles with my own bias. Hence, I tend to let a lot of time go by between edits, and use the talk pages. Ed Poor

Hi Ed. Well, can't one "choose" to do something (e.g. homosexual sex) without believing it is a sin? I am choose to eat pork, even though God commands me not to. I know that some people consider it a sin, but I do not. I also give to charity on occasion -- I choose to do so. My point here is that "choosing" in and of itself does not make something virtuous or sinful. In any case, my point was that saying it is a choice is not an explanation -- you still need to explain why people make that choice. If homosexuality is a choice, I guess heterosexuality is a choice -- I mean, I certainly do choose when to have sex and with whom to have it. But why do I make the choices that I do? Just to say it's my choice doesn't explain it. That's all.

Also, I edited your new heading -- I definitly appreciate what you are trying to do. I only want to point out that the views presented there (I wrote at least the original version) are not necessarily deconstructive. Specifically, the view of FOucault is definitely not deconstructive; Foucault violently disagreed with deconstruction. SR

Hi, SR. Thank you for your thoughtful comments. It's not easy to discuss "choice", "sin" and "homosexuality" in one breath. I think we agree that (A) whether I choose an action, does not necessarily affect (B) whether that action is sinful. In fact, I would say it's the other way around: (C) whether I regard an action as sinful, affects (D) my choice of whether to choose that action.

Interesting as the topics of sin and choice may be to me personally, I am not sure whether they belong in this article. Perhaps they would go in a religious perspectives on homosexuality article. The topics of sin and choice might also be relevant to gay rights. --Ed Poor

The reason that sin and choice belong in this discussion is that they are an important part of virtue ethics. By deciding that the "good life" involves self-control which includes the control of sexual behaviour, virtue ethicists (who are often religious) can argue that sexual orientation is affected by sexual behaviour, not the other way around. "Sin" is then, behaving in a way that is not virtuous, and "choice" is the operation of self-control. Virtue ethicists, as well as Nietzschens, might wish to question the basis upon which the concept of sexual orientation rests. Hyper3 (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Does queer mean bisexual more often than it means homosexual? My impression of the term queer is that it non-heterosexual, i.e., it refers to a person who has (some) homosexual desire. Thus we could divide adults into "straight" (heterosexual) and "queer" or "gay" (homosexual or bisexual).

This is purely a question on terminology and usage. I am not trying to advocate anything here, as far as I know. -- Ed Poor

Ed, I am actualy not the best person to ask. I think there may even be some who would say that there can be queer heterosexualis; I also think there are many who would say that even if "queer" meant "non-heterosexual" it means more than or even soemthing quite different thatn homosexual or bi. There must be people out there who were members of QUeer Nation or who know a lot about "queer theory;" I hope they can answer your question and correct any mistakes I made! SR

Efforts to change sexuality

A task force by the APA has come out with a new report that discusses efforts to change sexuality. Among their findings, they discovered:

• sexual orientation identity—not sexual orientation—appears to change via psychotherapy, support groups, and life events
• There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation. Scientifically rigorous older work in this area found that sexual orientation (i.e., erotic attractions and sexual arousal oriented to one sex or the other, or both) was unlikely to change due to efforts designed for this purpose.

The most recent findings by the APA should be reflected in the section. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not an article about attempts to change sexuality. It deserves a brief mention, maybe, but nothing more. Also, I am not sure that you are describing what the report said correctly. Here's a direct quote from the first appendix: "Although there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation, some individuals modified their sexual orientation identity (i.e., group membership and affiliation), behavior, and values (Nicolosi et al., 2000). They did so in a variety of ways and with varied and unpredictable outcomes, some of which were temporary (Beckstead & Morrow, 2004; Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002). Based on the available data, additional claims about the meaning of those outcomes are scientifically unsupported." So, they are not necessarily saying that even sexual identity changes due to conversion therapy, if that's what you're suggesting. Born Gay (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting conversion therapy changes sexual orientation identity. You are right, both fluidity of sexuality and efforts to change sexuality deserve a brief mention here, but the bulk of the material should be on the homosexuality and psychology page. However, the brief mention here should still be NPOV. I don't feel like it is. However, I am first working on getting the main article to be NPOV, then I will work on getting the summary to be NPOV. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect statement

"Sexual orientation is usually classified according to the sex or gender of the people who are found sexually attractive."
Actually, it is usually classified relative to the gender found attractive: opposite, same, or both. I will correct this. Jubilee♫clipman 15:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I also removed the term "sex", since it more often refers to either the act of intercourse and related activities or "the process of combining and mixing genetic traits" (see entry on sex). Jubilee♫clipman 15:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Protection in Article 21 by Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

On 1 December 2009, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union comes into effect. In article 21 sexual orientation is protected. GLGermann (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The article needs more neutrality, more facts

This article is chaotic and it needs a lot of restructuring. I added a section on how research on sexual arousal has brought some new interesting facts on sexual orientation and gender differences. Anyone should be able to read the whole item and understand the big picture. Right now, this article looks like a collection of fragments, a mixture of neutral facts and political defense strategies. It should talk more about human sexuality, based on facts, IMO, and less about social conflicts. I think that once people get the facts right, they are less likely to engage in conflicts over this issue. —Preceding unsigned • 18:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

LeVay's choice deletion explanation

Explanation for this editation is fully compliant with Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Use up-to-date evidence Putting it back is obviously in contradiction with Wikipedia rules. --Destinero (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

LeVay's book (1996) is more up-to-date than Hamer's testimony (1993). Can you explain to me why it is "obvious" that there is a "consensus" of more up-to-date research that contradicts LeVay? I don't see it. --Dr.enh (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

And the report of

1) Royal College of Psychiatrists (2007): "Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice."

2) clinical report of American Academy of Pediatrics published in leading academical peer-reviewed journal Pediatrics (2004): "the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. There is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation. Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood."

3) and an article of Dr Michael King, Professor of Primary Care Psychiatry at the Royal Free and University College Medical School, University College, London (2008): "The conclusion reached by scientists who have investigated the origins and stability of sexual orientation is that it is a human characteristic that is formed early in life, and is resistant to change. All theological, philosophical, and moral debates about how lesbian and gay people should lead their lives and follow their religious beliefs need to take account of these premises. Scientific evidence on the origins of homosexuality is considered relevant to this theological and social debate because it undermines suggestions that sexual orientation is a choice."

are much more up-to-date than LeVay's book and rely on much more up-to-date peer-reviwed evidence. Thus the consensus have to be pretty much obvious to everyone who can read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation#Influences_on_sexual_orientation

Also Wikipedia rules are pretty clear here Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Use up-to-date evidence: Here are some rules of thumb for keeping an article up-to-date while maintaining the more-important goal of reliability. These guidelines are appropriate for actively-researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews, and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made and few reviews are being published.

* Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years. The range of reviews examined should be wide enough to catch at least one full review cycle, containing newer reviews written and published in the light of older ones and of more-recent primary studies.

* Prefer recent reviews to older primary sources on the same topic. If recent reviews don't mention an older primary source, the older source is dubious. Conversely, an older primary source that is seminal, replicated, and often-cited in reviews is notable in its own right and can be mentioned in the main text in a context established by reviews. For example, Genetics might mention Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species as part of a discussion supported by recent reviews.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Books: "Medical textbooks published by academic publishers are often excellent secondary sources. If a book has as its declared target audience students, it may not be as complete as a monograph or chapter in a book intended for professionals or postgraduates. Ensure the book is up-to-date, unless a historical perspective is required."

Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Medical and scientific organizations: "Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature."

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#A vital component: good research: Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Academic consensus: The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. The reliable source needs to claim there is a consensus, rather than the Wikipedia editor. For example, even if every scholarly reliable source located states that the sky is blue, it would be improper synthesis to write that there is a scientific consensus that the sky is blue, unless sources cited also make such a claim.

Since my points and argumentation is virtually bullet-proof, I am putting back my version till new valid and constructive points appear eventually, which I consider unlikely at this time. --Destinero (talk) 09:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC), update --Destinero (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Other articles in need of similar attention include Conversion therapy and Sexual orientation change efforts. --Dr.enh (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Glad to read this. --Destinero (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

And thank you very much for finding the nice official PDF by RCP: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sexual_orientation&action=historysubmit&diff=330904322&oldid=330868315 --Destinero (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Prof. Michael King's quote

I have deleted the quote from professor Michael King which mentioned a non-existant conclusion reached among scientists that sexual orientation is formed during the early years. While it is true that scientists working in this field believe that sexual orientation is set during early childhood, based on their research and study experience, this convergence of opinions is not yet substantiated by empirical evidence. Thus, it is a statement which describes expectations of outcome in terms of reseach (it is most likely that sexual orientation is influenced by factors which act very early in life...). There are some studies that show correlations between sex atypicality (a predictor of non-heterosexual orientation) and levels of hormones exposure and cross-sex play behaviour, but there is no consensus yet, based on empirical data, that sexual orientation is indeed set during those years. It is important not to mislead readers and present a statement of opinion as a statement of empirical fact. Furthermore, I would not place authority of knowledge on political or professional organisations as much as on very important researchers in this field. Usually professional organisations orient their policy according to research results and political and social considerations. Professional organisations are much more political in their approach than scientists working in basic research, who are constrained by scientific methodology. I think that, when it comes to human sexuality, it's important to keep that in mind and place more authority on well-tested facts and less on what humans talk about them. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.87.128.70 (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia should present the quote of distinguished researcher as King clearly is: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/neuroscience/Page.php?ID=12&Researcher Since it was not presented as "statement of empirical fact" but as the quote, your reasoning is invalid. "Although we are unsure what those environmental factors might be, we know what they are not: for example, people do not become homosexual or heterosexual because of a particular kind of parenting or because of any kind of early sexual experience." http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=60752 --Destinero (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

And I fully agree with you that scientists working in basic research have a much to say to this issue: "sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-agin/stupidity-gay-marriage-an_b_385641.html

http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Doi=262525

Thus, this issue has been finally solved. If there are other unfounded reverts, I will ask a administrator for an intervention. --Destinero (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

---

@Destinero - I read your arguments and I agree with you that many scientists believe that factors operating in the womb are mainly responsible with setting the foundations of sexual orientation. However, we are far from having a consensus on this matter. Dick Swaab's research into a number of brain structures, such as the hypothalamus, has been concerned mostly with sexual identity and transsexualism. What he has documented is that certain nuclei in the hypothalamus which are thought to be sexually dimorphic are different in transsexuals, that is they are more shifted in the female direction. This is a correlation, which does not explain the origins of sexual orientation. There is another study by Marc Breedlove which documents changes in sexually dimorphic nuclei of the hypothalamus after hormonal treatment even in adults. I will try to track down the study again if it's necessary.

Secondly, I understand that Michael King is a psychiatry professor, involved in the primary care area. Michael King is not a researcher in the field of sexual orientation, at least not one with a high H-index in this area of research. Therefore, his opinions on the causes of sexual orientation are not the result of published basic research or meta-analysis of previous research. Neuroscientists can work in many areas of research, like studying vision or sensory integration. If he did research in the neuroscience area, then his opinion is just as good as that of any other neuroscientist's who did not do research on sexual orientation. I think it is not such a good idea to use the quotes of someone who seems to be more politically involved rather than scientifically involved. I would like to keep this article following the lines of scientific findings, which can inform the public on what knowledge has been gained from replicated research and how that knowledge can be properly interpreted, without being pushed in any direction by one's personal bias. This is what I'm trying to do. I hope we can agree on that and use facts that have a very good track of replication and which are as pure as possible from political interpretations and media distortion. Thanks.

PS. Quoting from the media and other non-professional websites is not a good way to make a point on conclusions on scientific work. All my contributions on this article have been based only on references to peer-reviewed studies from highly quoted scientific periodicals. Please provide the same arguments when making a point on scientific evidence. Quoting from a psychiatry professor from media sources and one who is not prominently involved in sexual orientation research is not such a convincing evidence of scientific consensus. 19:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

@Destinero: Who is professor Michael King and what does he represent for the study of sexual orientation? Why do you quote him as an authority in this area of research, when he is not one? Is his statement shared by all of the prominent researchers in the field of study on sexual orientation? 19:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts as I just found out. I agree with you that we should find better sources than professor King for that statement. I want to let know that I regard very highly the quality work of Wikipedia editors on this issues. --Destinero (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: Do you want to really state that this is non-professional and not usable for Wikipedia? http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Doi=262525 Are you sure? --Destinero (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

@Destinero: Karger (not a review) and Huffington Post (not a book, not a sci org, not academic research) do not seem to be reliable sources.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Use up-to-date evidence:

* Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years. The range of reviews examined should be wide enough to catch at least one full review cycle, containing newer reviews written and published in the light of older ones and of more-recent primary studies.

* Prefer recent reviews to older primary sources on the same topic. If recent reviews don't mention an older primary source, the older source is dubious.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Books: "Medical textbooks published by academic publishers are often excellent secondary sources. If a book has as its declared target audience students, it may not be as complete as a monograph or chapter in a book intended for professionals or postgraduates. Ensure the book is up-to-date, unless a historical perspective is required."

Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Medical and scientific organizations: "Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature."

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#A vital component: good research: Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Academic consensus: The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. The reliable source needs to claim there is a consensus, rather than the Wikipedia editor. For example, even if every scholarly reliable source located states that the sky is blue, it would be improper synthesis to write that there is a scientific consensus that the sky is blue, unless sources cited also make such a claim.

--Dr.enh (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

But I've never said otherwise! I don't put that source to the article or so, I've only put it here to the discussion. This source is much better: http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Doi=262525 --Destinero (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Pediatric Neuroendocrinology: Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation

I find essential the following study and it's conclusion to be mentioned in the article: "The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation." http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Doi=262525 --Destinero (talk) 10:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

New revision

“ The London-based DJ Sandra D has been known to have an extremely good perception of sexual orientation, also known as "Gaydar". ”

I think it should be deleted. It doesnt seem vandalism or I would delete it myself, what it does seem is biased.

You're quite right, and indeed I went immediately to delete it myself, although fortunately another editor had got there first.

Just a few hints here - and I am guessing you are new to Wikipedia, so please accept my apologies if you are not!

Don't be deterred from deletion by thinking that you can only delete vandalism. You can delete anything, although deleting material that has been there for some time and survived the attention of other editors is not generally a good idea unless you are absolutely sure there is a serious problem with it (if you're not sure, but have nagging doubts, it's generally better to re-write to address those doubts, rather than just delete).

In this particular case, someone was clearly trying to draw attention to the DJ Sandra D. It's quite common to find such attempts. They are not quite vandalism in the destructive sense, but they don't help Wikipedia, for the simple reason that they don't add anything to a reader's understanding of the subject. (In this case, someone interested in knowing about sexual orientation is not given any help by reading about Sandra D.)

Finally - did you know you can sign your contributions to Talk pages like this one? See WP:SIGN. Barnabypage (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Other categories than gender important?

"Some scholars of sexology, anthropology and history have argued that social categories such as heterosexual and homosexual are not universal[citation needed]. Different societies may consider other criteria to be more significant than sex, including the respective age of the partners, whether partners assume an active or a passive sexual role, and their social status." I asked for a citation for the first sentence of this paragraph, because while I believe the statement to be quite true, it needs verification.

Barbaree, Bogaert, & Seto, (1995) write that "sexual orientation is defined by (1) the ability of a certain class of stimuli to evoke sexual arousal and desire in the individual, (2) the persons or objects toward which sexual behavior and activity are directed by the individual, and (3) the persons or objects depicted in fantasies and cognitions" (p. 358)." (from: Sexual reorientation therapy for pedophiles: Practices and controversies. In L. D. & R. D. McAnulty (Eds.), The psychology of sexual orientation, behavior, and identity: A handbookGreenwood)

Theirs is a much wider and more inclusive definition of sexual orientation - one which seems to be gaining quite a bit of influence. Would it perhaps be appropriate to add a sentence or two about this way of defining it? I will make no changes in the article until this has been thoroughly discussed here, of course. Persistentswede (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverting edits by Nick Levinson

A 1995 study by few scientists does not supersede 2010, 2008 APA statements. That would be WP:UNDUE. Plus Nick Levinson failed to quote the applicable sections. Phoenix of9 02:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Your revision of the 28th last at 10:29p (22:09) is a wholesale edit of which you explained exactly one item, the explanation having almost nothing to do with the rest of your massive edit. For example, I checked an organization's website, corrected the organization's name in the article, you made it wrong again, I checked its website again, and your edit is still wrong. Old research if still valid is not displaced by a new position statement. Nor need it be quoted when the description of it is accurate; copyright issues may be relevant. I realize you are passionate but that is not ground for deleting what you don't like. Please restore. And, in the future, for each edit you propose, please consider it on its own merits. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You can quote a paragraph, there are no copyright issues there, that sounds like a stupid excuse. Much newer APA reviews (and they are reviewing studies there, their data doesnt come outta thin air) and statements which are contrary to those old studies replace those studies. Phoenix of9 22:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No, positions don't replace scientific studies. Look at publications' authors' guidelines for peer-reviewed scientific journals as to what may be cited in a bibliography. Organizational positions are not generally considered citable science in themselves, if ever. They are politically and professionally important but not replacements for research reports even when new and even when based on reviewing science. There are systemic reviews in journals that, as articles, pass peer review; but I don't think you've cited one and I don't know if there even is one on this subject.

I already quoted most of the paragraph on one item from the 1995 material. The amount I think you want me to copy risks violating copyright. I don't think more needs to be quoted in this case to fairly represent what the original says on point and for readers to understand it. If you want to add to the quotations without exceeding fair use limits, that's up to you, but don't delete because I didn't quote more. A major purpose of WP is to let people follow up what's interesting, not to put everything in there, and that's why there are references and links.

You haven't replied justifying your other edits, so I guess you don't object to my reverting your reversion, which I did, except for accepting Orientalmoons' subsequent edit and your one subsequent edit and streamlining the first sentence a bit. Even though I don't entirely agree with everything in those edits, they don't require reversion. But it took a lot of labor. Please don't do wholesale multi-item edits without justifying each item (if some items are similar a single justification will suit them).

Thank you.

Nick Levinson (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

testosterone excess as imbalance in article

Undue weight is being given to the testosterone results. It has validity but it's not alone. Reductionism is not always valid. No major psychotherapy organization asserts that testosterone is all that determines sexual orientation. We should carry reasonably credible scientific reports of other explanations, integrated into the body and lead, and not negatively. Not all scholars and authors need to agree with each other to be in the article. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of changes on a user talk page

Please see User_talk:JamesBWatson#Sexual_Orientation for comments on some changes recently made in this article. Timothy Perper (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Inserted changes in biological determination of orientation

I revised the sentences under debate (see previous entry, immediately above) to make it clear that they represent the viewpoint of certain thinkers and theoreticians of orientation rather than undoubted fact. I also corrected some non-factual statements. This is an area of intense and widespread debate in sexology, and the article must not, in my opinion, assert one view as factual. This debate might escalate into an edit war in the time-honored fashion of Wikipedia, but eventually the article MUST adopt an NPOV approach to these issues. My changes move the article closer to NPOV, and I will revert changes very quickly when they are made by edit warriors. The literature on this subject is immense, and the article must reflect the complexity of these debates. Anyone wishing to start an edit war -- which I sincerely hope does not happen -- had best Google a variety of terms and concepts, including "reparative therapy." We must achieve a balance, neutral and comprehensive, about the issues under discussion. Timothy Perper (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted it; if you want to reverse the meaning of a sourced paragraph, you'll need to source such an extensive modification at least as reliably as it currently is. "Neutral" does not mean "gives equal prominence to all points of view", but "properly reflects the consensus in litterature". — Coren ^(talk) 01:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There was no reversal of meaning. I merely pointed out that the paragraph was written -- the way I got it, since I didn't write the original -- with a specific viewpoint, called "biological determinism" or "biological reductionism." I added a reference for the biological determinist idea of gender, and will add a bunch more in the future -- maybe (see below). I also added some corrective references to reparative therapy for "homosexuality" (Spitzer, Nicolosi).

Now, the next issue. You're starting to edit war. Don't. If you keep it up, I won't even bother answering you, because it's a waste of my time. I have a doctorate in biology, and have been publishing scholarly work in human sexuality since the 1980s, and have been on the editorial boards of a number of scholarly journals of human sexuality. I'm an expert. The appropriate response to someone like me is to say, "Hey, thanks, let's put some additional references in." But Wikipedia is not known for its courtesy. Maybe I'll add more references -- Michael Ruse, Walter Bockting, David Hunter, a whole bunch of people. Maybe. Or maybe not.

This article is an absolute MESS. It's confused, references are missing, it contradicts itself, and it's badly written. If you or anyone else want some expert help, I can offer such help. But when you simply start reverting without thinking or reading, then it isn't worth my time. What you do next is up to you. What I do will be determined by your response. You want some expert help, fine. You want to delete things, I'll leave you strictly alone to waste time -- but not mine.

Timothy Perper (talk) 08:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I won't argue with any of you. You can waste time, but do it on your own time. Timothy Perper (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not an "expert" with signs of childly behaviour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Coren#Reverts_for_Sexual_Orientation_article), who just simply comes and changes (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sexual_orientation&diff=353309941&oldid=353265470) a 2007 report of highly credible and reputable body like Royal College of Psychiatrists prepared by Professor Michael King (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mental-health-sciences/staff/king.htm). You came up with a 1971 book published in those days when homosexuality was still considered a mental ilness and one (debunked: Conversion therapy#Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation?) medical study as references for your exceptional claims, which is prohibited due to WP:REDFLAG, Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Scholarship, Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Summarize scientific consensus and Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Use up-to-date evidence. Your expertise and contributions to the science is extremely limited (http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/9230/isiperper.png) in spite of professor King for instance, whose work is cited dozen times more in major reputable peer-reviewed journals than yours (http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/7623/isiking.png). Please stop waste our time and read a Wikipedia policies thoroughly at first. --Destinero (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You could try to find an updated CV of mine. Stop the personal attacks. Timothy Perper (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Timothy I had to revert you again. I see your perspective. I think that we can agree that there is more than one perspective here, and research that says different things. The prevailing research seems to show that sexual orientation is biologically determined. The section that you edited says that. Your edits weaken that statement by qualifying and changing what the sources that are cited actually say. If you have a different POV that is supported by citations, then another section with the alternative view should be stated. Weakening and changing perspective you don't agree with isn't the solution. We are not trying to write an article that has only one view. The article should show the span of competing views accurately.

If there are substantial rewrites or changes in a controversial article, then discussing and proposing those changes in advance always helps. A draft of changes discussed, and then put in the article afterword is usually more effective. Yes, you are allowed to be bold and make your changes without getting feedback from other editors. That works well in an article that has few people watching. In controversial articles where every change is monitored by dozens of editors, it nearly always fails. Keep in mind that the people you are dealing with are largely editors. They will always view you adding your opinion based on your substantial expertise as Original Research.

Getting back to the article, you added a portion on reparative therapy. Since the entire previous section cites experts saying that Sexual orientation is not a choice, and not the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development, and then you suggest reparative therapy, that is confusing. In a follow on paragraph, discussing alternative perspectives or theories of changing sexual orientation could be done. Atom (talk) 08:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I support Timothy Perper's comments about this article. By the way, the American Psychological Association does not say that sexual orientation is biologically determined. It says in its pamphlet about the issue that "Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles" - that contradicts the article, which implies that it is based only on biology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirp (talk • contribs) 06:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope, won't argue and won't edit this anymore. Timothy Perper (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a basic confusion of what Wikipedia policy on NPOV is. Neutral Point of View does *not* mean that the article should be neutral. Attempts to change the text of one POV so that it does not say what it says as strongly is not how one fixes an article to make it Neutral. If there are multiple POV's, then they should each (in their own section) be we allowed to accurately represent that POV (based on reliable sources and citations for the statements made). This gives the reader full exposure to the alternate perspectives given, and they can weigh their own opinion as they choose. They can follow the given citations as they choose.

ALso, keep in mind that these articles are not scholarly papers written in collaboration between experts on a given topic. It is an encyclopedia and is written by editors who gather information and present it as fairly and neutrally as possible without adopting any POV. As editors, they primarily are concerned with rules and guidelines, formatting, punctuation and presentation. When someone tries to take on a dual role as an expert on the topic, and also as an editor, it is extremely tricky. An editor may not offer their opinion in the article, they may only present was can be provided by reliable sources on the topic. An expert can't help but to give their opinions -- but when they edit here, they may only bring their broad knowledge of the research done and help to establish of multiple POV's which ones should be more heavily weighted based on their knowledge of the field. They can edit to be sure that technical or scientific information is accurate, and that proper technical jargon for their field is used when it is used. Trying to inject their own research ad opinions is not appropriate (unless they are giving citations to their own published papers or books.) Even then a basic conflict of interest can arise. Atom (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You're not even listening, Atom. I said I won't argue with you but you keep trying to provoke an edit war. I have no POV on this topic, although you do. I invite you to read some literature in this area: start with Milton Diamond, Simon LeVey, and Richard Pillard. No one can edit anything on Wikipedia if they do not know the basic principles of the subfield they're writing about. In fact, you need to know more than the reader -- because that is why you're the writer and they're the readers (a comment true of writing and teaching, BTW). You wrote: "Neutral Point of View does *not* mean that the article should be neutral." No, you are wrong. That is PRECISELY what it means. The article must NOT take sides one way or the other. A synonym is "objective." And stop trying to incite an edit war. Timothy Perper (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

From TP: A thought added later. Atom, you can edit this article any way you want. I'm going to take this page off my watch-list and you can put in whatever you want. No more of this. Timothy Perper (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Even though I know you won't be reading this, let me try to be more succinct. From WP:NPOV "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." This means that if there are different POV's they should all be represented fairly. This does not mean trying to remove or massage material to make it not conflict with other POV's, it means in fact, just the opposite.

So far, I don't believe I have argued with you, but only have explained Wikipedia policies. We haven't had a revert war, nor have I encouraged that. I reverted you once, after you made changes to the article that violated policy, and when an admin reverted you, you reverted him, and so it was necessary for me to revert you.

I have given your unique situation some thought. What might work for you is if you, as an expert, discuss the issues and problems you see in the talk pages. Then editors would be able to correct those things. In that way, you don't have to mess with the bureaucratic nonsense of editing, and can focus on your areas of expertise. Certainly as A PhD, and an expert in your field, you probably delegate research tasks and grunt work to graduate students all of the time. If you wade in with the editors, you probably are going to get your shins kicked. Why not let someone else deal with that so that you can deal with the higher level issues with the article. Atom (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no desire to step into an edit war but one paragraph did indeed begin with weasel words. I replaced it with wording that is consistent with NPOV and does no damage to the sources. If my edit is in any way controversial I would ask someone to explain it to me; I do not think it is, it was not intended to change the meaning of anything, simply to improve the prose. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, wow, it's a good thing I was going to take this off my watchlist later today. If I had done it earlier, I would have missed Atom's overt threat. (Quoted from above: "If you wade in with the editors, you probably are going to get your shins kicked.") Wanna get banned, Atom? Repeat the line about kicking me in the shins. Let me give you a serious warning. DO NOT MAKE THREATS OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE AGAINST OTHER PEOPLE. Got it? Timothy Perper (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well,as they say, "no good deed goes unpunished " --Luce

Consider what I said from a metaphorical perspective.

Good luck to you in your editing! Atom (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a big word. Do you know what it means? It means that it is obvious that you can't kick me through my computer screen. But it's a disruptive threat whether it's a metaphor or a meatball. In my opinion, you are seriously disrupting the normal processes of editing and discussion by making such "metaphoric" threats. I experience genuine malice from your words, Atom. I hear and experience you as sneering, bullying, trying to frighten me and other editors into silence. You are, in my opinion, making it impossible to achieve consensus. I am seriously tempted to tell you simply to be quiet and do some real editing: add material, improve it, fix up the obvious flaws in this article. But I am also beginning to think that those are exactly the things you do not want to do, and perhaps are unable to do, no matter how many Wikipedia policies you can quote.

Tell me, does your repeated sneering at me being an "expert" -- which seems to bother you a lot, judging from how often you sneer at it -- does your repeated sneering cover up your fear that you just might not know the first thing about the topic of this article? You can prove me wrong only by putting in substantive material, say about biological essentialist theorizing about the origins of gender, or about Milton Diamond's overarching biosocial theories of homosexuality or about Robert Francoeur's developmental-genetic model of sexual orientation, to pick only three of dozens of possibilities. Or about Anne Fausto-Sterling. In a word, it's time for you to do some work on this article, rather than sitting on the sidelines telling other people what to do. The issue isn't about metaphor: it's about whether or not you are a phony. Now, prove to us all that you aren't by doing some real work on the article, not just attacking people from the sidelines. You told me to "assign" some topics to people: OK, Atom, here's YOUR assignment: write 200 documented and referenced words on Milton Diamond's work on the origins of sexual orientation. BTW, the reference to APA cited above by Kirp will give you some ideas. Timothy Perper (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

TP again. But now what does anyone want me to do about all this? In actual fact, I can't assign any topics to anyone; that was a fantasy of Atom's. A desire to revise and improve this article has to come from somewhere other than me -- once again, I won't do it (been there, tried that, got nowhere). I think you can see where I'm going with this: in the last analysis, this article and the problems raised by various forms of disruptive and/or chaotic behavior have to be solved by you folks. So now I am going to take this article off my watchlist, and this time I won't delay. So Atom can attack all he wants. It's in your hands now. I have to go back to working on a book my wife and I are writing (the fifth we've published together). I wish I could say "It's been fun," but it hasn't. My bottom line is that I think all the sneering and hatred and anger is counter-productive and a total waste of time. Timothy Perper (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Probably unrelated to the above fracas, but the lead of this article is far too long. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

science for all people based on males only

Health and psychology have for decades studied men and asserted that their conclusions were gender-neutral. There's some validity; as far as I know, probably the medical prognosis of a stubbed toe is the same, assuming equal toe size, equal nails, and no foot-binding. But the claim is almost never made for reproductive health, so any such claim for sexuality must be immediately suspect. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

testosterone theory contradicted by asexuality

The 2010 study on testosterone surging by Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab, as abstracted, relates to only 2–3 sexual orientations, effectively denying asexuality as a sexual orientation, so something else would have to explain asexuality. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sexual orientation, identity, and behavior

This section is in dire need of some tidying up- I'm not sure exactly what aspects of the topic it is trying to cover at the moment, but it seems to be trying to do all of them.

I deleted two paragraphs, both of which probably belonged more in section 4 (Influences on sexual orientation)- however, when I looked at moving them I decided they did not add anything to that which was already there.

The issue about theories surrounding determinants not being well supported was already covered in the first quote from the APA et al. The remainder of that paragraph was a single sentence with seven clauses (too many, and it was not clear at all to read). I attempted to rewrite it, but in the end, it seemed to say very little that was meaningful. If another editor feels it is important, then the sentence needs to be rewritten before it is included in the article again.

The second quote, introduced as the citation for "Motive is recognized as influencing sexual orientation" did not appear to support the initial sentence (at least, not in the sense that I read it in). Rather, it repeated content which has already been covered elsewhere in the article (causes not clear, evidence that environmental influences may not exist, people express their identity differently depending on the society around them). Orientalmoons (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it would improve this article if it identified actual debates, and put views on sexual orientation in the context of such debates when appropriate. For example, there is a debate (largely in the US) about whether LGBT people should have equal rights and be socially accepted. In the context of this debates, some people argue "yes" because sexual orientation is not a choice (which ie often equated with "biological" or "natural") and some people argue "no" because they believe sexual orientation is a choice. I think the second view is a minority view but NPOV requires us to include minority views; we just have to be careful not to give them undue weight.

But there is a second debate in academe, among anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists, as to what factors determine sexual orientation. Like the debate over Race and intelligence this debate may ultimately be over genetic versus environmental factors.

But it is a real error, in the real world and in writing an encyclopedia article, to mix up these two debates. One can hold that sexual orientation is genetic (like astigmatism) but sexual behavior is a choice (like wearing glasses); one can hold that the causes are environmental and still be a militant for equal rights/social acceptance/treatment for LGBTs. Many things have environmental causes yet are experienced as "natural" rather than free choice.

These are two separate debates and my point is separating the debates (and not just views) will make it easier to incorporate controversial views and go over separate views in a logical, orderly fashion that will improve the overall organization of the article. It will also help us know how to incorporate different views without giving them undue weight. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. Per WP:NPOV alternative viewpoints must be expressed, and should be expresses objectively. Supporting citations for the viewpoints should be given. It is not possible to express the perspective of the differing views fairly if other views are mixed with them. So, a separate paragraph, or separate section for the differing viewpoints should be provided. Usually going to the point of splintering into separate articles is necessary, but in my opinion, should be avoided unless there is no alternative way of discussing two very different viewpoints in the same article. They should be given fair weight (not equal weight). (for instance some relatively new fringe viewpoint should have relatively little weight, while some long standing theory with much research supporting the theory should be given more weight.)

The mistake too frequently made is that a new editor hears about the term NPOV and think\s that means the article must be "neutral" (which for them means not giving weight to the view they oppose.) The article should give each viewpoint coverage. Attempts by opposition to weaken or reduce the impact of opposing views by changing what the citations say to something different should not be allowed. Atom (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I added the two paragraphs in response to, as I recall, a criticism that only material newer than certain other sources could be added. I don't think that's true as long as the older material remains valid, but I complied anyway. I'm open to restoring or not depending on whether newness of a source is required to establish the continuing validity of an important point. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I too agree completely with Slrubenstein, although I'm not entirely sure where to begin with actually editing the article (and in any case, I don't have the time to devote to it in the next week or two). Clarity about who contends what and why would hopefully allow the different points of view to be given appropriate weight and make the article much more cohesive.

Nick Levinson, I'm not sure what point the paragraphs were trying to make, exactly, and I don't think others reading the article would either; I couldn't really see that they were saying anything that hadn't already been said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orientalmoons (talk • contribs) 22:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think proposing a rewrite and discussing it could yield positive results. If we focus on making it easy to read and understand. We should include competing views. As far as older versus newer references, that is a judgment call. If old research is updated or replaced by newer research then the newer reference should replace. If they are complimentary and give different aspects of the same topic, then both could be. If an older theory is debunked, one could still refer to that theory and why it is no longer solid. There any number of possibilities. Atom (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think everyone agrees that secual orientation refers to a predisposition, distinct from behavior (as Marvin harris wrote in Our Kind, just because one prefers meat over potatoes, does not mean one can't have a potato every once in a while). I think the crucial thing is that there are two debates, a public debate that still follows the logic of the medieval "determinism" versus" "free will" debate, and an academic debate that with fringe exceptions considers sexual orientation to be "determined" but are not at all clear yet as to whether the determinants are genetic, socio-cultural, or some combination of the two. This would reorint the structure of the article from "who is right?" to "what are people arguing over?" My main hope is that this would provide a much more useful framework for people - currently active, or newbies - to know where to add a new bit of information, or a new source. The NPOV and NOR policies make it clear that the context for views is as important as the views. I think what plagues this (and many other articles) is that it tries to provide all the views, but is poorly organized with regards to their distinct contexts. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think most people believe that Sexual Orientation is "hard-wired" and that one cannot change it. One can choose to behave in many different ways. A man who is sexually attracted to women may occasionally decide to try sleeping with men, but that is not "Sexual Orientation", that is homosexual behavior. The issue is what exactly causes a person to be hard wired n that fashion? Some people believe that although it is hard wired, that some techniques can change that wiring. (Not my opinion) Is that wiring caused entirely by genetics? By some genetics, and some very early environmental factors? (Presence or absence of hormones in uterus?) Environmental factors early in life? These are issues that the article should discuss. Viewpoints that it is not biological, and is a matter of choice/behavior is not well supported by research. Hence, IMO that should be a view that has very little weight, or lacking citations, non-existent in the article. Atom (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

personally, I have no argument with anyting you write, although I think "hard wired" is often accomplished entirely through social and cultural means (and we know that things that are biologically hard wired are often easy to change). But you are providing an account of scholarly research. This is important and needs to be foregrounded. But there is another debate, one in the general public, that has diferent terms, and the article should cover it as well. I think that a lot of useless conflict among editors occur when they think that there is only one debate, when they treat one debate as if it is part of th other debate. My point is that "sexual orintation" is an object of debate, and that there are different - separate - debates and the article should cover both but make it clear that these are separate debates. I think virtually all of the confusion occurs when someone thinks that a view that plays an important role in one debate is also part of, or even matters to, another debate. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify what your perspective is on the two separate debates? Of course, I know there is a discussion with people who think that all people are born the same, and that homosexuals are people who "choose" to be who they are, and the choice to behave that way is immoral. Based on that assumption, that they deserve to be marginalized and discriminated against, in the same way that a criminal would be. Of course, I don't believe that, not does nay rational person. But there are large numbers of well meaning, good-seeking people who feel badly that they must judge people in that manner, but feel that their religion tells them they should.

Taking religion out of the picture (as if that were possible) and approaching it from a scientific discussion, the sexual attractions that one has are something that are beyond their control -- originating from very early in their life. The decision to follow ones orientation or not is behavioral. Just as once society thought that left handed people were aberrant, but then learned to accept that as a normal part of being human, others will someday accept people with an inborn sexual orientation as a normal part of being human -- just different than some others.

The concept of sexual orientation merely being a label, and not something hard-wired, seems to be the biggest difficulty. If there is older research focused on self-reporting of sexual orientation, then there will be a number of valid cites focusing on how people have chosen to live, rather than on their base sexual orientation.

We as editors need to have a clear understanding of the different POV's -- or as you say, the different debates and faithfully organize and document them so that others can understand. When an editor comes in and changes a paragraph because it emphasizes "another" POV to strongly for their tastes we had to revert them and point them to documenting *their* POV more accurately (if it is not already being addressed in the article). Or their debate, or however you may perceive it.

Lets keep talking about this, and start a rewrite in a scratch location and work it out. Atom (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid I do not understand your question, "Please clarify what your perspective is on the two separate debates?" What do you mean by "my perspective? What would count as a satisfactory example of "my perspective?" Slrubenstein | Talk 22:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You said "...there are different - separate - debates and the article should cover both but make it clear that these are separate debates." What are the debates? Atom (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I began this thread by identifying two debates in my 12:58, 3 April 20 comment, You replied that you agree completely. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is Sexual orientation, it is not LGBT rights or Human rights in USA. So debates in the US are irrelevant. Phoenix of9 13:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is that there is a not insignificant number of people who believe that everyone has control over their own sexual orientation, or perhaps, doesn't recognise that there is such a thing as sexual orientation (because everyone is really heterosexual and everything else is deviant behaviour). In the English speaking world, I would guess that most of these people live in the US, but not exclusively. In any case, I would say that it is a widespread enough POV that it does have to be included in the article (and there will be no shortage of sources for this view, either, from conservative Christian sites).

The debate is not just about LGBT rights, but about the nature of sexual orientation (choice/not a choice; can be changed at will/cannot be changed at will), though of course it has implications for a person's rights.Orientalmoons (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure about the view that Sexual orientation being non-existent, or a matter of choice being primarily an US view is ridiculous. That viewpoint is primarily subscribed to by fundamentalist religious groups. Those groups are not all Christian groups. Jewish and Muslim groups outnumber Christian fundamentalism. In the English speaking world the same applies. Moderate religious groups, such as Catholicism (which is not primarily U.S.) hold that view. Frankly it seems likely that the "viewpoint" that sexual orientation is not a choice and that homosexuality is a human rights issue is primarily US based versus a world view. Atom (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Note Evolution and the small section Evolution#Social_and_cultural_responses. A small section like that, which links to discrimination and human rights violations, in this article might be ok but "Sexual orientation, identity, and behavior " should not be modified to support fringe views. Stick to what scientific organizations like APA says. Phoenix of9 16:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing I wrote is about LGBT rights. Orientalmoon seems to understand me fine. The APA is one view. It is an important view, but only one. Sociologists and anthropologists have studied sexual orientation, and scholars in women's studies programs and cultural studies too have written important work. Their views are important too. The question is, how to accommodate them. And I again say: views do not just appear, they appear often in the context of particular debates. Making the context (what particular debate) clear is part of explaining the view. As for debates in the US being irrelevant, this sounds disingenuous; Phoenix_of9 wants us to stick to the American Psychological Association. So obviously Phoenix thinks that some US debates are relevant. But the real point is that views are not disembodied, they come from some place. If the view does not occur in the US, then it is occurring somewhere else? Should we include only views that come from China, because it is a more populous country? Well, if it is a significant view, then yes. When it comes to sexual orientation, there are a number of competing views, and it would only surprise the naive to learn that a view considered significant by one group is considered insignificant by another group. We should not include fringe psychological views as psychological views. But that does not mean that this article must restrict itself solely to the views of psychologists. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that viewpoints backed by scientific studies should be in the article. That would include sociological and psychological research. There is a difference between a study and a poll though. I don't see that this article should have a place for superstitious views though. Atom (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sexual orientation is one component of a person's social identity. When you are talking about people, it is not only social scientists, like anthropologists, psychologists, and sociologists, whose views are relevant. The views of sexed persons are also relevant. The issue here is not "superstition," the question is what is a significant view and what is not. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I was not trying to say that I thought the issue here was superstition. "Superstition" is a belief in something greater than oneself, such as a god or gods. There was earlier discussion about religious perspective on the topic. I was saying we need an article based on science, not on faith. I hear that you are saying that the views of a person are relevant. Of course the label they choose to use for their sexuality is important -- but that can be different or the same as their sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is something that is inborn, not something one believes in. That is part of the difficulty in discussion I think, in that the view used to be that Sexual Orientation was a label or identifier that a person chose for themselves, or that a person may use to describe their behavior. Now we are discussing the topic, and some of us are talking about chosen behavior, and some of us are talking about the type of people we are attracted to based on our biology. One way to proceed with the article would be to describe that Sexual orientation was once thought to be a matter of choice, and now is thought to be a matter of biology, and not choice. We can present citations from both views. What has happened is that a section will be written from one perspective, and someone with the other definition will come along and rewrite it, changing the meaning.

This brings up things like: "A person cannot change their sexual orientation."

• Viewpoint A: "Of course she can change her orientation. She can stop sleeping with other women, and she can stop saying that she is a lesbian. She can choose to sleep with men. If she calls herself a heterosexual, then she is one.
• Viewpoint B:"Of course she can't change her sexual orientation. She can stop sleeping with women and start sleeping with men. Her behavior will change, but her orientation, that of being attracted to women, will not change.

Viewpoint A people think "Sexual Orientation" means the label one chooses for their behavior. Viewpoint B people think "Sexual Orientation" is ones true nature, regardless of sexual behavior or choices.

Atom (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we do have an issue in that there is no consensus of what we mean by sexual orientation. At the point which we start saying categorically that it is "a matter of biology" or "inborn" then we're heading into POV territory. We could be prescriptive or descriptive within the article, although I had always assumed that Wikipedia was very firmly in the latter camp. So even though the academic and medical community is pretty much agreed that people cannot choose or change their orientation at will, it is important to acknowledge other widely held viewpoints, however distasteful we might find them. Yes, there are people who use sexual orientation as a synonym for sexual identity and sexual behaviour. The article should note that. Would that be sufficient to cover the views of those who consider sexual orientation as something that a person chooses? I don't know.

For what it's worth, my personal opinion is that people don't get to choose their sexual orientation (nor change it at will), certainly I had no sense of choice about mine. But really, my opinion doesn't matter, and neither does any other editor's. However, it does seem a bit like people aren't able to distance themselves from their own opinions in order to write an article which accurately describes the different POVs surrounding sexual orientation.Orientalmoons (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, "the views of sexed persons are also relevant"? Then are the views of evolved persons also relevant? In less developed countries like USA, according to a poll by USA TODAY/Gallup, majority of people believe that creationism is true [6]. That does not meanevolution article should be majority-crap. Phoenix of9 23:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be fair in the evolution article to have a section that discussed that some people, based on faith rather than science, believe in alternatives to the established theory. There would be a link to the creationism article, but not discussion of the alternate theory in that article. After all, the article would be on evolution, not on theories of how humanity arrived on earth.

I think what he means when he says "the views of sexed persons are also relevant" he means that some people believe that they chose to be Lesbian, and how they identify is important. Again, a confusion over sexual orientation and sexual identity. Atom (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I may be the product of evolution, but our knowledge of human evolution does not come from my consciousness - or any individual's consciousness - of having been evolved. It comes mostly from fossil evidence and to a lesser but important degree our understanding of genetics. So it makes perfect sense that the evolution article be based on research by experts on fossil and genetic evidence. When it comes to sexual orientation however, all of our knowledge comes from the conscious experience of individuals. Social sciences like psychology offer one avenue to research the conscious experience of these individuals. But being human beings, many of these individuals represent themselves, sometimes through literary texts which are studied by scholars in cultural studies or comparative literature (which is why work by scholars in these fields should also be drawn on in developing this article). And sometimes they express themselves collectively and in and through organized means. I have read some pretty stupid (or hysterical) rhetoric on this page, like, if it is not "science" then it is "religion" or "superstition" - claims that smell more like religious dogmatism than science, actually. But I have not read any rational arguments as to why the collective representations of people of their own experience of their sexual orientation should be excluded from this article.

Now, I did not start out arguing that these views should be included. I took it for granted that they would be included. My argument was that they have to be incorporated into the article using a critical framework, one that provides the contexts in which these views are produced. This would be a framework that would also provide the context for which other views - the APA, the ASA, the AAA - are produced. The bottom line is simple: Wikipedia is not about "truth," it is about providing significant views from verifiable sources. And if you think that the views of only one group of people are significant, you are in effect claiming that their view is "true" and not just a view. And there is nothing scientific about this approach, this really is religious dogmatism. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"When it comes to sexual orientation however, all of our knowledge comes from the conscious experience of individuals" is quite an ignorant claim and its almost as silly as "this really is religious dogmatism". About the former, we have other kinds of data, like data from penile plethysmograph and MRI's. As for the letter, as I said, there could be a section on something like social and cultural responses. But what we know about sexual orientation should have reliable sources. Joe the plumber isnt one. Phoenix of9 02:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are directing your comments towards. A composite of the people who discussed. Actually I side with most of what you say. Religion and superstition are the same thing. I think we have all said that religious dogmatism should not be in the article. Also, I think we all agreed that all viewpoints that can be accurately cited from reliable sources should be in the article, and not just one viewpoint. However, what is in the article needs to be on topic. Surveys of people talking about their experience of what they perceive as their sexual orientation might be on topic, and might not be. As we have indicated there seems to be differing definitions of what that means. For instance, you said "When it comes to sexual orientation however, all of our knowledge comes from the conscious experience of individuals." Well, when we discuss sexual orientation from the perspective of something that is biologically innate, that doesn't make any sense. You are using a different definition. If you are discussing, for instance a woman's choice to be a lesbian because of her relationship with her father, and her family situation when she was raised, and how men have treated her badly, you aren't discussing sexual orientation. It isn't that these things aren't interesting, or valuable it is just that it isn't on topic in an article about sexual orientation. It is best left for an article about why someone would choose to be homosexual. Atom (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't think comments that include "an ignorant claim" or "pretty stupid (or hysterical) rhetoric" are productive to our conversation. They are there to push other people buttons, not resolve dispute or find commonality. Atom (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I was responding to Slrubenstein. I didnt say, "When it comes to sexual orientation however, all of our knowledge comes from the conscious experience of individuals.", I was quoting Slrubenstein. Phoenix of9 03:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to further what Atom said, Phoenix of9 I am warning you to review your behavior in this discussion in light of site talk space guidelines and etiquette as well as site civility requirements. Your points to Slrubenstein are tendentious and ad hominem. If you wish to develop this article with others please restrict your commentary to a discussion of specific sources rather than your opinions about concepts or others' views--Cailil ^talk 03:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Cailil, for possible future reference, I note your lack of impartiality when you failed to say something to Slrubenstein when he said: "some pretty stupid (or hysterical) rhetoric". If I cant call his claims ignorant, he should not be able to call people's "rhetoric" stupid or hysterical. If you wish to develop this article with others please maintain at least a degree of objectivity. Phoenix of9 08:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Cailil, Frankly I think we have made a lot of progress. I AGF with both Slrubenstein and Phoenix_of9 and despite some of the language, I think we are getting meaningful discussion toward rewriting the article done. Both of them are saying meaningful things, but adding necessary language that pushes civility.. Atom (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

While I take your point Atom about progress here, the fact that Phoenix_of9 responds to someone advising you to review site policy by assuming bad faith is unacceptable. You seem to be missing the hint Phoenix_of9 (that hint being WP:5P). Please everyone remember that if somebody doesn't use talk-space constructively they will be prevented from disrupting the talkspace. Incivility, assumptions of bad faith and flamebaiting (as Phoenix_of9 is doing to myself above and has been doing to Slrubenstein in this thread) is not acceptable. Phoenix_of9 this is the last time you will be asked to review site policy and to adjust your behaviour accordingly - this not the only page or issue you have received such a warning for. Further disruption anywhere on wikipedia will not be tolerated--Cailil ^talk 16:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"I'm warning you" is not advising. Your response to me could also be considered flamebaiting. Your lack of impartiality while making admin notes [7] is unacceptable. After Slrubenstein's post in your talk page [8], you came here and have displayed biased behaviour. So I suggest you not to get involved in any admin actions related to this talk page, let uninvolved admins handle it. Phoenix of9 21:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I concede that penile plethyskmographs and MRIs may be useful tools. That does not mean that the way people represent their sexual orientation is "superstitious" or "religious." To dismiss people on those grounds is certainly incivil and ignorant. Also, I do not know where or how Joe the Plumber enters into this discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. No one has said here that the way that people represent their own sexual orientation was either religious in nature or superstitious. Religious fundamentalist trying to push their POV that "God hates fags" , and the "lite" version of that is what we do not need in the article. Saying that those opinions are not on topic for this article is not dismissing them. The "way people represent their sexual orientation" is something that should be in the article, IMO. The issue is that we have to be careful to keep the two viewpoints that use the same term in different sections to avoid editors and others from being confused as we obviously are. Atom (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe his "Joe the Plumber" reference was an attempt to say that not all references are welcome. One could probably find and cite a quote from "Joe the plumber" about his opinions about sexual orientation based on his faith in God and Leviticus. Not on topic here.

We have made progress with discussing the confusion in use of the term "sexual orientation". SO, how do we express that well in the article so that others know that the terms meaning and usage is in transition, and so that there are many viewpoints about what it means? Atom (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I opened this (I mean, my first point) by suggesting that we distinguish between academic debates and public debates. As for views within each debate, I think our basic NPOV standards apply: significant views, verifiable sources. If Joe the Plummer has achieved some position that makes his views significant, within the context of public debates, then we have to include them. If they are not significant, then we don't. That is basic policy. What woulod count for a significant view in a public debate? I think statements by major politicians/elected officials; widely read or viewed journalists or commentators; spokespersons or representatives or leaders of major civic organizations. I assume we don't have to niggle about what is a verifiable or reliable source. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said, public debates should have its own section, not "Sexual orientation, identity, and behavior" section. Phoenix of9 21:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Different debates should have more descriptive headings, e.g. "Psychological views" or "Behavioral psychology views." otherwise I am glad you agree with me. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Some quotes are from "American Academy of Pediatrics", which is not a psychological organization. Phoenix of9 23:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we can start an outline in a draft? Atom (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

A draft is added. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The editing is done, largely per the draft, so the draft per se is no longer important. Review the article and edit as you see fit. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Psychology has a claim that when people around us want us to do something and we do it then it's not chosen. I've heard this applied to the purchase of the Guess brand of blue jeans. To me, that means that if a business executive is long surrounded by other business executives earning profits then there's no choice involved in making profits and therefore the executive should not get paid well for their business success. This would make it difficult to hire executives who are good at making profits. Or if a contract killer often has dinner with clients who want more killing and carries out their persistent demands and then is arrested, confesses, and reveals the whereabouts of corroborating evidence which is found and brought to court, the said murderer should be acquitted and freed because the murdering was uncontrollable, in which case the murdering will likely continue. I doubt any large society agrees, or should. If I jump across a puddle, I do not choose to flap or not flap my wings; I haven't got any, and that is due to biological determinism. On the other hand, I choose to wear clothing, which does not include blue jeans but does include pants and shoes, even though my best memory is that I've been trained probably since my first weeks of life to wear clothing whenever I go out and pretty much whenever I stay indoors. Even though it's a choice, it is quite enduring and very resistant to change, and thus it is a clothing orientation, although I occasionally choose to engage in exceptional behaviors, such as sometimes not wearing clothing when I'm alone at home and the weather is warm. A sexual orientation being enduring and resistant to change does not mean it cannot change. It does mean that it is not capriciously or whimsically changed, because, e.g., that kind of change occurring daily between homosexuality and heterosexuality would mean that one's orientation, that which is enduring, is bisexuality. We need to be clearer about what we mean by choice/nonchoice in the realm of psychology. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that your own theory is that sexual orientation is something a person learns (with the implication that if there are genetic or hormonal influences, they do not play a great part). Do you have any reliable sources for this theory? Because if not, even with all the analogies in the world it cannot form a part of the article. I do not think that selectively quoting from an abstract is the right way to go about things- either it is a reliable source for this topic and therefore we can use any relevant parts of it, or it is not reliable and we can't, surely? Orientalmoons (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My view, partly noted in the past, is already well supported by the article taken as a whole: sexual orientation is mostly based in biology with some choice. I doubt it's mostly choice or the demographics would be different. But the demographic data does support some choice as a factor.

A source, including an abstract, can be reliable for one thing and not another. If someone says a photo of a rock on Mars resembles a human face and therefore God put it there, the resemblance may be scientifically supportable although the theological point not (if, say, we require that the existence and nature of God be scientifically proven). That separation between what's reliable and what's not can happen if point B is offered as logically following from point A but the logic doesn't hold. Different journals have different standards as to what is to be proven and how, and they may be looked at critically. But what you replied to didn't cite an abstract. What were you referring to?

If anyone wants to use the scholarship pointing to exclusively prenatal/neonatal hormonal determinants as the exclusive explanation, I assume they want to delete from WP's various articles relating to sexual orientation almost everything on demographics and on all other branches of scholarship. I notice that's not happening. I agree it shouldn't happen. Most scientists whose work on point is accepted in WP do not agree that the early hormonal explanation is the only valid one. I think we should build on that.

Thanks.

Nick Levinson (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Cailil, let's not chase Phoenix_of9 off. Phoenix_of9's been repeatedly annoying to me but similar views are widely held in the gay community where I've done some volunteer work and if Phoenix_of9 leaves someone else (maybe Destinero) will step in to much the same effect and for much the same reason. Better to deal online with the presence of editors who have such views and respond accordingly. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix_of9, the American Academy of Pediatrics doesn't have to be a psychology organization, since the article gives much weight to theory based on biochemically-based prenatal, neonatal, and early childhood development, so pediatricians and contributions from the study of pediatrics may be relevant. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Orientalmoons, the paragraphs probably didn't add much. They were mainly to satisfy the critique that only newer material could be added when other new material had been recently added. I think it had to do with an idea that sexual orientation is due exclusively to prenatal/neonatal biochemistry so that all older theories were wrong, unless newer publications showed continuing validity for the other theories. So I obliged. If newness of theoretical (re)statement is still important to the article, then the paragraphs should be combined with similar points elsewhere in the article to satisfy the critique. I don't mind rewriting for clarity. Should theoretical (re)statements be new? Nick Levinson (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I think "statements by major politicians/elected officials; widely read or viewed journalists or commentators; spokespersons or representatives or leaders of major civic organizations" would be too much for an article on as widely controverted a topic as sexual orientation. You could fill a hundred articles on this topic alone with sources like that, just in the English language. A systematic or scholarly survey or two could be interesting to cite, although whether a source like that could define the cause of sexual orientation seems doubtful to me, partly since it would quickly devolve into a religious debate. (For example, since homosexuality is valid, then, if a deity creates and blesses heterosexuals, the same deity must also be creating and blessing homosexuals and I'm pretty sure I can find a religious organization so stating. You can imagine the revert wars that will inspire.) Let's not go there. But if you know a well-done on-point survey that can be concisely mentioned, that might be acceptable in a section or subsection for lay opinion leaders' views outside of science or scholarship. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)