Talk:Simon LeVay/Archive 1

Archive 1

Housekeeping

The article seems to repeat itself in the 'Sexuality Research' and 'Controversy' sections. A better flow would be to either combine the two, or make a passing statement on the controversy in the 'Sexuality Research' section and link to the 'Controversy' section there. I recommend someone who is better at fluidity do it, but I'll give it a crack tomorrow if necessary.Rec Specz (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal per WP:BLP

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Doc^g 00:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The Pinel reference you removed sources the statements you removed along with it. I have added additional sources and have more eugenics-related info and quotations to add at a future date. Jokestress 01:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The cited research did not refute LeVay, but discovered only the volume varied, not the number of neurons. This is a far cry from refuting LeVay. The research did find the same difference in volume of the INAH3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.93.2 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 15 June 2007

---

"Countering LeVay's claims suggesting homosexuality is a genetic predisposition (e.g. a "gay gene"), Brannon points out that "gender identity is a complex concept relating to feelings [...] that are not limited to or congruent with sexual behaviour.""

The statements above make no sense. Gender Identity is one's sense of being male or female. It is not related to Sexual Orientation, which is what LeVay was studying and commenting on. Can someone please clarify this or delete the information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.226.95 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 29 May 2007

Misrepresentation

The article quotes The New York Times saying that LeVay cheerfully looks forward to the day when it will be possible for women to abort fetuses likely to become gay. Since LeVay has denied that this is an accurate description of his views, surely the quote should be removed unless there is additional evidence showing that this is what he in fact thinks? Skoojal (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have kept the quote in the article, but pointed out that what it asserts is false. Implying that the quote is correct is potentially libellous, as warned about at the top of this page. Skoojal (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

General Overview

This article is unclear and confused. Glossing over the fact that the summary of LeVay's work is simplistic and unhelpful, the article seems to be be a diatribe raher than an encylopaedia entry. Only refutations of LeVay's work have been quoted, the syntax is in some places non-existant and the use of citation is extremely selective. (Many are out of date)The fact that LeVay has had to resort to providing a link to another website to respond to this page seems ridiculous. Presumably these flaws are the result of multiple overwritings and contributors working at cross-purposes. However, it would be advisable if someone with scientifc knowledge pertinent to this issue was to re-write this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSecretWhale (talk • contribs) 19:24, 3 March 2008

Well, if you can see how selective the citations are, you must know something about this issue, so why not re-write the article yourself?Skoojal (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Repetitions

As a result of my recent editing, this article has become rather long. It also contains some repetitions. For example, it now contains two different admissions by LeVay of the same thing - that it's difficult to tell the importance of INAH3 size because it is not known whether the differences in size of that part of the brain were there from birth or not. I don't see this as necessarily being a problem; if LeVay admits this more than once, then the article should be able to mention these multiple admissions. However, if someone wants to shorten the article slightly so that there's only one admission by LeVay of this, I don't object to that. Skoojal (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have now done this myself. Skoojal (talk) 06:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Original research

This whole paragraph is original research:

Some of LeVay's critics have agendas. A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D, is a conservative Mormon who speaks at LDS events about the success of conversion therapies which attempt to cure homosexuality through religious counseling. Andrea James is a transsexual activist who has helped to edit this article. LeVay has responded to the criticisms James inserted into an older version of this article, and accused her of pursuing a personal vendetta against him because he made positive comments about the work of J. Michael Bailey [2].

Let's discuss how to handle this. Jokestress (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain why you perceive that paragraph as being original research? Дҭї 09:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of the critics criticised as having agendas are being cited as sources for the article, and not as quotes from critics. Дҭї 09:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Jokestress, if it's OK for you to point out in the article that A. Dean Byrd has an agenda, it should also be OK for me to point out that you have an agenda. Skoojal (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who added that. It's part of all your POV pushing you have done here. Jokestress (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Coming from you, Jokestress, the accusation of POV pushing is laughable (the edit to which you refer was minor, mostly concerned with style). If you're thinking of dropping any further hints about my behavior in regard to other articles, don't. This is the Simon LeVay talk page. Stick to the subject. Skoojal (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have a small introduction to all of LeVay's prominent critics before listing their criticisms, and we should cite them as critics, not as reliable sources. Дҭї 09:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The article was fine the way it was. Jokestress should not try to conceal the fact that LeVay has responded to her criticisms of his work and made clear his objections to her as a person. It's useless at this stage, and does a disservice to readers of the article. Skoojal (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, one could just as easily say some of LeVay's proponents have agendas. That's in there to dismiss critical commentary. Unless we have someone saying that in a quotation, it's WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. The stuff about me is WP:SELF. Jokestress (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If you point out that someone has an agenda, others can point out that you have an agenda. This is crucial information for the reader. I am simply doing unto you as you have done unto others. Skoojal (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again, YOU added this: "Some of LeVay's critics have religious or other agendas." See the diff I already cited.

As far as I am aware, that original wording was your work. It certainly wasn't mine. I simply rephrased it slightly.Skoojal (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who added that. If you can't even concede that obvious fact, then we have a problem. Jokestress (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

What are you complaining about exactly? The fact that I changed a capital R to a lower case R? Skoojal (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I can see what you are doing. You are pointing to that particular edit to try to make it look as though I was responsible for that wording. I was not, and a more thorough look at the revision history of this article would show that I was not. If it looks in that edit as though I was, that's because I shifted that comment there from another part of the article. Maybe you forgot what really happened? Skoojal (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For the fourth time, YOU added this exact phrase which was not there before: "Some of LeVay's critics have religious or other agendas." See the diff I already cited. You added the OR about agendas, not me. If it appeared earlier than that, please show me the diff. Is that clear? Can you agree with that? Jokestress (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[3] is a version of this article edited by you, before I started work on it. It contains the mention of critic's agendas, and shows that I was not responsible for that wording. Skoojal (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

But you added it back in after it was removed (it was originally put in by an IP editor), and I never added it, right? Jokestress (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have had a careful look, and you are correct that you did not add that passage. I apologize for jumping to an unjustified conclusion. However, although you did not add it, you didn't remove it either, and ultimately that makes you as responsible for it as if it had been your own work. Skoojal (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The passage in question was added by Hopping on May 28, 2007. Skoojal (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that LeVay publicly complained about what you did to the article about him is a good enough reason to mention in the article that you did it. WP:SELF is a guideline that permits for exceptions. It is not good enough to simply mention it without offering an argument to show how it supports your case. I therefore will be restoring the content you deleted from the article. Skoojal (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are not going to work toward consensus, perhaps we should get some other people involved. Jokestress (talk) 00:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps we should, especially since you don't seem to be working toward consensus either. Skoojal (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Porter quotation

I'd like to discuss this edit:

Historian Roy Porter falsely claimed that LeVay, "...cheerfully looks forward to the day when the 'new eugenics' born of the human genome project will enable women to abort fetuses likely to be carrying any traits they don't much care for, including homosexuality." [17]

We need a source for the assertion he has "falsely" claimed this. Wikipedia does verifiability, not truth. Porter made this claim. That is not false. If LeVay has taken issue with the statement, we should note that with a proper source after the Porter quotation, something like "LeVay takes issue with this assertion." . Jokestress (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. The claim was utterly false. Anyone who actually read LeVay's book, the review, and LeVay's response, would know this. If you want a source for the falseness of the claim, then refer to Queer Science itself. Although I have not removed the mention of Porter's false claim from the article, I regard it as questionable whether it should be included. Skoojal (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone says something that is obviously false, an article should be able to point that out that it is false. If someone falsely claimed that a famous writer was secretly an anti-semitic Nazi with terrorist connections, for instance, then it would not be OK for a wikipedia article to quote such a comment and follow it with . Skoojal (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, then show the page number where LeVay takes issue with Porter, who is merely stating his opinion. Your terrorist example is obviously libel; Porter's statement is fair comment from a review that appeared in the New York Times. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. Porter made it, that can be verified, and if LeVay has taken issue with it, we should include that response as well. Jokestress (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Roy Porter is dead. You cannot libel the deceased. Skoojal (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand my point. So to make it more clear, simply show the source where LeVay takes issue with Porter. Jokestress (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's in an article on LeVay's website that you should be very familiar with, since it attacks you. Skoojal (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So we agree that the Porter stays in with a citation from LeVay's website where he takes issue with the assertion, right? Jokestress (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Porter quote is borderline in my view. I am not going to remove it myself, but it is questionable whether it should be there in any form. If it stays in, the article should state that it is false. Otherwise it would likely be libellous. Skoojal (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Having reconsidered the matter, I've decided that the Porter quote is useful and should stay in the article - but only as an example of a false claim. Skoojal (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've considered this again; I no longer think that the Porter quote should be in the article. It's very dubious content. If it has any place in Wikipedia at all, it should be in the article on Porter. Skoojal (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Some remarks on the state of this article

As I have commented on my user page, I believe that I have improved this article. It is far from perfect, however, and definitely needs further improvement. There are at least two things that probably need changing. I removed some criticism of LeVay by Byne on the grounds that Byne changed his mind later; there should be no problem with restoring that criticism so long as Byne's more recent view is also mentioned. Also, I am not sure that Brannon is a good source for this article; many people may have made the same point that she has about INAH3, so it's unclear that it has to be Brannon who is quoted. There may well be numerous other things that need changing. The article is badly in need of being looked over by someone who, unlike me, is a real expert in science. I do not expect LeVay himself to comment on its current state, but it might be helpful if he did.Skoojal (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Brannon reference. It seems to imply that LeVay thinks that we do know what INAH 3 does, but this is false. Skoojal (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the remarks by Joan Roughgarden as well; they were also misleading. At the moment, I do not think that the remarks by Ruth Hubbard and Nancy Ordover should be removed, but it could at least be argued that they should be removed at some point in the future, if a different way of conveying the same information can be found. Skoojal (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ordover devotes a number of pages to LeVay in American Eugenics and is a key source for opposing views. It should definitely be mentioned in the article. I could incorporate that into the proposed eugenics section below. Jokestress (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the mention of Ruth Hubbard's criticism, since LeVay, in his original paper, actually said something similar. While nothing in the quote from Hubbard was technically wrong, it was used in a way that was misleading (which is true of very nearly all the criticism you added to the article). Skoojal (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Roy Porter eugenics quotation

I'd like to discuss unilateral removal of this passage:

In the New York Times, historian Roy Porter wrote that LeVay, "...cheerfully looks forward to the day when the 'new eugenics' born of the human genome project will enable women to abort fetuses likely to be carrying any traits they don't much care for, including homosexuality." [4]

LeVay has taken issue with this on his website, which is noted in the article, but the connection between LeVay's work and eugenics is not exclusive to Porter. I feel it should be included as representative of criticism. Let's discuss the merits of inclusion/exclusion. Jokestress (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that articles should contain false/defamatory claims of this kind. If someone invents a false claim, then that claim might possibly be mentioned in the article about the person who made it up, but not in the article about his or her victim. Skoojal (talk) 02:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

LeVay may take issue with the characterization, but it certainly does not constitute any kind of actionable defamation. Jokestress (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It constitutes the kind of claim that should not be in this article (even during the time I thought it should remain, I wasn't fully happy with it). I think you will find little support or sympathy for reinserting it. Skoojal (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP is not limited to the legal definition of defamation, as Jokestress knows very well. If there's a reliable source that says this is a common complaint/misunderstanding/whatever, then we can include it. Otherwise, it should go. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

LeVay's work and its association with eugenics is well established; the entire second section of American Eugenics is a detailed discussion. Ordover notes that INAH was previously implicated in homosexuality, when in 1972 gay German prisoners were released if they would submit to excision of this part of their brain. That work was endorsed by The Lancet as ethical. She also notes that LeVay's work came to prominence during a political upheaval, shifting the rights movement to how we got to be the way we are. This is, of course, for those not being dissected, a much safer enterprise, requiring no change in the status quo and offering up the promise of eventual eradication not of marginalization, but of the marginalized. She adds, the 1990s ushered in the voices of LeVay and Witelson and Hamer, telling a homophobic nation that queers really are different from them at the most basic level. As the WP article currently states, a bunch of articles on the topic came out in 1993 when The Twilight of the Golds premiered. The fact that LeVay has responded to these statements is evidence that it's a common complaint/misunderstanding/whatever. Jokestress (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Then let's say that, with the explanation of why this matters -- but without the inflammatory quote, and preferably with more than one source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Porter's claim was completely false and possibly malicious. The only reason why I once thought that it should remain in the article was as an example of a false claim - but thinking about it, I realized that examples of this kind of false claim were mentioned in LeVay's work, and that they are much more appropriate. That's why the reference to Tolins is there. Re-adding Porter's claim to the article would look like an attempt to pile on as much criticism as possible. Skoojal (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Those who look to history are condemned to repeat it

I'd like to add this LeVay response to critics as well: Nelkin notes that "Nazi extermination of homosexuals was grounded in their presumed biological status," but LeVay himself dismisses such historical precedents, saying, "Those who look to history are condemned to repeat it." (Nelkin/Lindee, The DNA Mystique, p. 124.) Thoughts? Jokestress (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no immediate comment. I'll consider this. Skoojal (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This should not be done, because there is a fundamental inaccuracy in Nelkin's assertion. (She was a sociologist not a historian.) From the article "Homosexuals in Nazi Germany" (http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=395203):

The most frequent theme in [the Nazi leaders'] official statements on homosexuality echoes one of the paradoxes of the "sodomy delusion":11 namely, homosexual practices are limited to a vanishing handful of degenerates, but so contagious and able to "spread like wildfire" among all strata of the population that without firm measures to halt the growing evil, the end result will be race suicide.

So in fact the Nazis thought that homosexuality was dangerous because it was contagious and were not hostile toward it because they saw it as innate.

Jokestress, aka Andrea James, is incessant in her efforts to tar the objects of her hatred with the Nazi smear. (See, most recently:http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/alice-dreger/fair-comment.html#why). She should not be allowed to do so here.21:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)ProudAGP (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

How does that passage indicate "inaccuracy" on the part of Nelkin? "Biological status" is not necessarily referring to innate conditions, though it should be noted that historians generally acknowledge the Nazi attack on homosexuality to have been codified in 1933 via the the Law for Prevention of Hereditary Diseases,[5] and more clearly spelled out in the 1935 amendment: "Removal of the gonads of a man can be performed only with his consent, and only if this has been recommended by the medical officers of the courts or administrative authorities as being necessary to free him from a degenerate sexual drive which might result in further infringements of paragraphs 175 to 178, 183, 223 to 226 of the Penal Code." Homosexuals were considered biologically inferior because they did not reproduce, in addition to the possibility of a "gay germ." Both aspects of their presumed biological status were factors in the persecution. More important is the quotation from LeVay himself, which does need some context and should be included. Nelkin made the Nazi analogy, which is why I quoted it to contextualize LeVay's reply. Jokestress (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Provide evidence that the Nazi's thought that homosexuality was spread by germs rather than learned behavior. The Nazi attack on homosexuals was not clearly due to any eugenic concern, as is clear in the quotation I provided. Nelkin's quotation is a naive attack on studies such as LeVay's, and I believe you want to use it to bring in Nazis in LeVay's page. I think you shouldn't. I think we should let others weigh in here. Skoojal?ProudAGP (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting)Provide evidence that Nelkin's quotation is "a naive attack on studies such as LeVay's." That's merely your opinion. Nelkin, on the other hand, is a respected academic whose work is reliable and verifiable. It's interesting how no critic's qualifications or statements seem to be acceptable for inclusion here. I'll scrounge up a few more, since there are plenty of published sources comparing the work of LeVay and Nazis.

The idea that homosexuality is inborn has, of course, been voiced before, for Nazi eugenicists used comparable arguments to prove that gays, like Jews, gypsies, and schizophrenics, were inherently and indelibly diseased and degenerate. Nevertheless, LeVay is convinced that scientific evidence for the "born that way" theory offers the best destigmatising strategy for the gay community. (Crisp 2004, Every Family in the Land, p. 11)

There are three more paragraphs if context is an issue for anyone. Here's Porter again (whose comments in the New York Times piece are apparently not qualified for inclusion here, according to some):

LeVay is convinced that scientific support for the "born that way" claim offers the best strategy for the gay community. Critics, including those aware of how Nazi eugenicists treated homosexuals during the Second World War, have accentuated the dangers in this new medicalization of homosexuality. (Porter 1999, The Greatest Benefit to Mankind, p. 704)

There's also this insightful passage:

LeVay was at the forefront of the search for a biological cause of homosexuality. He conducted research mostly on hormones and the size of the hypothalamus until the 1990s, when criticism of his methodology led him to abandon his research position and become a freelance writer. [...] LeVay's work, more of a queer creationism that a queer science, promotes the essentialist logic of being. (Halle 2004, Queer Social Philosophy, p. 214)

If people are concerned about implying intent, we could use Rosario's summary, which notes LeVay's "emancipatory intentions" before noting that the same kind of work is done by people with "less benevolent intentions" like Carl Værnet (Rosario, 1997, Science and homosexualities, p. 37). All of the above would help contextualize LeVay's "Those who look to history are condemned to repeat it" comment. Jokestress (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you find the passage above "insightful" because it would allow you to take additional digs at LeVay. I am certain, however, that he has never said that he "abandoned" his research position due to "criticism of his methodology." That is an outrageous claim, and it is not verifiable by what LeVay himself has written, and unless you can find evidence to the contrary (and you can't), it is a violation of BLP. You are a piece of work, jokestress, a defamation machine.ProudAGP (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Because you are new, you may be unaware of a couple of Wikipedia policies. First, I would direct you to the policy on no personal attacks. Calling me a piece of work and a defamation machine is unproductive. Please remain calm and stick to discussing content. Second, I would point you to WP:V, which outlines what sources are acceptable. As you will note, all of the sources above are acceptable and verifiable. We can only report what others have written here. If you have sources that refute the statements above, please provide them. Jokestress (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As you know, biographies of living people have more stringent criteria, and you can't simply put a false insinuation into someone's page just because someone once said it. As much as you'd like to.ProudAGP (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, please review WP:V, specifically the first sentence. All of the above citations are verifiable, so whether you personally consider them "the truth" or not isn't relevant. Unlike your opinions, these passages are published by respected authors and academics. If you feel there are balancing quotations, please provide them. As it stands, it appears that the opinions and statements above are the prevailing view of LeVay. Jokestress (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand that this meets your WP standards. But those standards are too low. I will be happy to have others weigh in. If I am mistaken, I will yield.ProudAGP (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You could post it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard if you wanted an outside opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

LeVay and eugenics

Below is my proposed text for a new section on LeVay and eugenics:

Proposal 1

Psychologist Peter Hegarty noted that LeVay "enthused about introducing 'a new eugenics'" based on parental decisions. LeVay wrote:

By allowing parents to make these choices, we will introduce a new eugenics—a democratic, "do-it-yourself" eugenics that will circumvent the central evils of the past. The genetically underprivileged, who in the earlier eugenics were deprived of the right to reproduce, will now be free to decide whether they are indeed underprivileged or not, and if so to make the necessary adjustments in their offspring. Democracy has its own evils. But the keys to successful democracy are education and freedom of speech. So it will be with the new eugenics. No one must understand that more clearly than gay people, who have an urgent and formidable task of persuasion in front of them.

Historian Roy Porter responded that critics "have accentuated the dangers in this new medicalization of homosexuality," noting, "Nazi eugenicists used similar arguments to "prove" that homosexuals, like Jews, Gypsies and schizophrenics, were diseased or degenerate (thousands of homosexuals were then put in camps and eliminated)." He adds, "Nevertheless, LeVay is convinced that scientific evidence for the 'born that way' theory offers the best destigmatising strategy for the gay community." Psychiatrist Vernon Rosario notes LeVay's "emancipatory intentions" before noting that the same kind of work is done by people with "less benevolent intentions," like Carl Værnet. German theorist Halle Randall notes, "LeVay's work, more of a queer creationism that a queer science, promotes the essentialist logic of being." LeVay himself dismisses such historical precedents, saying, "Those who look to history are condemned to repeat it."

Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this proposal, which reflects Jokestress/Andrea James' monomaniacal desire to smear her opponents with associations with eugenics more than it does any accurate reflection of Simon LeVay's career, biography, and scientific-or-other contribution. I do not doubt that these references meet some kind of lowly WP standard, but WP:NPOV warns against "undue weight," and I believe Jokestress/Andrea James' proposal has undue weight. First of all, neuroscience is pretty irrelevant to eugenics. (If Jokestress wanted to bring in eugenics on Dean Hamer's page, if he has one, that would be more defensible.) Second, these people and their opinions are not influential enough to have warrant a mention here, much less a section. Hegarty's article has been cited only 8 times (versus LeVay's 1991 article, which has been cited more than 400 times). Porter is simply wrong about the influence of these kinds of findings on attitudes. See:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEFD7103CF936A35750C0A965958260

which makes clear that "biological" findings are strongly associated with increased tolerance of homosexuality. Any NPOV treatment of these issues should obviously include that, but the section simply doesn't belong here.ProudAGP (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

As noted in the quotation, LeVay himself raised the issue of eugenics, not me, and there were many responses to his statements. It's a pretty noteworthy part of the debate about LeVay's work and legacy. Again, if you think Porter is wrong, that does not matter. Your beliefs and opinions are irrelevant. If someone in a reliable source thinks Porter is wrong, that is relevant and should be included. We present both sides of arguments. Jokestress (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Combined references

There is no reason in principle why a quote from LeVay cannot be in the article. It is, however, important to ensure that quotes are not taken out of context and misrepresented. It also important that misleading commentary not be placed in close conjunction with those quotes. Porter's comments seem off the point to me. Rosario's comments may not meet a strict definition of defamation, but they come dangerously close. Randall's comments are bizarre. Skoojal (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The Hegarty paper reports original results from a clinical study; it's therefore deprecated as a WP:PRIMARY source. Furthermore, it's largely redundant with the LeVey quote, which means it was probably included for the POV purpose of smearing LeVay with being "enthusiastic" about the prospect of greater parental control over their offspring's sexuality. (Nevermind that control works both ways, and that gay parents might choose to increase the likelihood of their children being gay: You're supposed to be frightened by the prospect of genocide here.) I think it should be deleted.

Otherwise, I think Skoojal's comments are about on target. In short, I think that while the issue in general might be an appropriate thing to include, I think that this particular approach to it is deeply flawed. I'd like to suggest that we try using fewer direct quotes. That might help with some of the POV issues. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing of LeVay's comment about misinterpretation of his work

The current source given for the quote from LeVay cautioning against misinterpreting his work is NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. It would be preferable to use a different source, such as the original interview in Discover magazine where LeVay made these remarks (the NARTH site just regurgitates bits of them). Skoojal (talk) 08:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Still on the issue of sourcing, I have removed something sourced to a creationist website. I don't think that one creationist article can be used to source a general claim about what "some critics" (which is weasel words) think. The most that article could be used to a source is a claim about what its creationist authors think, but in my view it would be undue to mention their views at all. Skoojal (talk) 09:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The original was in the Salt Lake Tribune. Further, you have removed something like ten other reliable sources from the article in the past few days. Can you explain the reasoning? Jokestress (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that was not the original. The Salt Lake Tribune article was written by A. Dean Byrd, the head of NARTH. It simply quoted an interview with LeVay from Discover magazine - that's the original source. As for the removal of those reliable sources: you used nearly all of them in a way that was deeply misleading, as I pointed out in the edit comments. I only wish I had removed that stuff more quickly. Skoojal (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

LeVay's Criticism of Andrea James belongs in the article

This passage, 'In 2007 LeVay responded to the criticisms transsexual activist Andrea James and others inserted into an older version of this article. LeVay accused James of pursuing a personal vendetta against him because he made positive comments about the work of J. Michael Bailey' was recently removed from the article. I re-added it. The editor who removed it called this 'badmouthing' James. To that I reply that 'badmouthing' someone means making false claims about him or her. This claim, however, was correct, and it should not have been removed, since it is a relevant part of LeVay's biography. Furthermore, the removal of that passage also removed the link to the website where LeVay rebuts James's misleading (and in one case defamatory) claims about him, thus depriving him of the chance to correct the record. Skoojal (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe Skoojal is correct on this point. Jokestress' off-wiki attacks against sex researchers have been noted by multiple RS's, including the New York Times. Her off-wiki behavior therefore meets the threshold for inclusion in WP. That she also edits on WP is irrelevant (except that it consistitutes a violation of COI, in my opinion, when she edits the bio of people against whom she has made her off-wiki attacks).
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 23:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is thoroughly inappropriate. Its' a WP:NPA Violation, WP:BLP Violation, both against a wiki editor. It's also not a reliable source, but a vio of WP:SELFPUB. It's not in the right section, and if it's really been covered by other sources, then those can be used to cover it. Stop giving him a platform to attack her, you're acting as meat puppets. I have again removed it as a massive violation, and outside of WP:3RR as a WP:NPA/WP:BLP violation.ThuranX (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of the policies you mention are irrelevant. The only possibly relevant one is WP:SELFPUB. You seem to be implying that because Andrea James is a wikipedia editor, a violation of BLP regarding her would somehow be worse than a violation of BLP regarding anyone else. I beg to differ. In addition, I note that your comment is uncivil in the extreme. You have invoked the No Personal Attacks policy, yet, by accusing James Cantor and myself of acting as Simon LeVay's meatpuppets, you have made a personal attack against both of us (and against Simon LeVay as well, which is most unfortunate behaviour for someone who has just started editing the article about him). It might be regarded by some as hypocrisy. If you want to avoid giving that appearance, I suggest you strike out that part of your comments. Skoojal (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The article on Verifiability says that, 'Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.' It's unclear to me that simply reporting what LeVay (in my view correctly) said about James is using a self-published source for a claim about James since that isn't a claim about James at all, just a claim about what LeVay said about her. Skoojal (talk) 12:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is childish wikilawyering. One: LeVay makes a lot of disparaging claims about James in his piece. Two, what SELFPUB is perfectly clear about why you shouldn't be including it. Three, one gay sex researcher/activist attacking another gay sex researcher/activist in his blog is a violation of BLP, plain and simple. Any of these three is enough to justify removal. Further, it's an out of place comment, placed int he sexual research section. Finally, the claim was made that this dispute was covered in reliable sources. Use those reliable sources to build a criticism section, do not link to what is little more than a blog. I'm not, as you keep hinting, opposed to Levay standing up for himself. I'm not opposed to Levay at all. However, That link and subsection are not the right way to advocate for his side, which we shouldn't be doing at all. I've made clear how to solve this problem, you're just not interested in paying attention. This will be cross-posted to the AN/I thread. ThuranX (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Blogs and AOL pages must be used only as a last resort. I am sure, with a little work, you can find a better cite than LeVay's email home page. Citing a subject's web page as the only sources for a controversial topic violates several policies. Please refrain from this course of action. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I had been under the impression that citing a person's own blog was permissible on their own bio page as an RS for what they themselves think. Am I misreading the policy?

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 17:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it can be a source, but not the only source. Having just one single source on a living subject's academic disputes is dangerous, and that's why we have rules such as WP:RS and WP:BLP. That's why I've insisted on finding another source. The subject's complaint, off wiki, about the article itself, messes with the basic foundation rules of Wikipedia. There are many examples of BLPs -- even FAs -- with sourcing from the subject's own material, either autobiographies, or blogs, or websites. I've used such sources myself, but every such citation must be matched with a good, clean, independent source, preferably secondary. Take a look at some of the bios I've created, e.g., Martha S. Lewis (dead), or Jeffrey Pearlman (live), or edited, e.g., David Paterson, and see the multiple sourcing. I'm not asking other editors to do what I would not do myself. In an extreme case, I'd suggest tagging the statement "fact" or "citation needed". Bearian (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I recognize that there may be a problem with using LeVay's website as a source. However, in reply to ThuranX: LeVay has the right to his own point of view regarding how James edited the article about him. Whether his views are correct or not should not be the issue. Also, you described the situation as, one 'gay sex researcher/activist attacking another gay sex researcher/activist.' This is odd: LeVay is a scientist, while James apparently is not. They are not 'researchers' in any comparable sense, so don't treat their views as though they were equivalent. The fact of their both being 'gay' has no relevance to whether there is a violation of BLP or not. ThuranX's claim that the comment was misplaced is also odd, and clearly wrong: a scientist's response to criticism of his scientific work is obviously relevant in a section about that work.Skoojal (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no problem with using LeVay's website as a source for his statements about himself. The BLP policy explicitly allows this. There are some caveats: you can't base the whole article on such sources, for example. But it is allowed, and it can be the sole source for specific facts. A classic example is someone's birthday: If they publish a blog post saying "Today's my birthday", then you don't have to get a third-party source to verify that statement.

As for the previous statement being controversial or biased against Jokestress in violation of BLP: I don't think that any literate editor could possibly describe Jokestress' activities in this article as heaping the subject with praise. To the contrary, "criticism" is exactly what the editor added. The article didn't say "unwarranted criticism" or "stupid criticism" or "outrageous criticism" -- just "criticism". Depending on your perspective, you could read that as "providing much-needed balance in an encyclopedia known for only publishing positive statements about any living person."

I do not believe that any existing policy prohibits the inclusion of this statement. (Whether or not this is important enough to merit inclusion in this biography is an entirely different subject, and one that I have no opinion on.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of the issue matches WhatamIdoing's. She also expressed my same conclusion very nicely.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 20:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Andrea James' (Jokestress') eugenics obsession and Simon LeVay

It will take a little reading to get through this, but sometimes doing extra reading is necessary to be a good WP editor. I have found it especially important and useful in double-checking jokestress' (Andrea James') work. She has a proposal on the table to discuss LeVay's views on "eugenics." (Scare quotes necessary) I have typed up the relevant section from LeVay's book Queer Science, which provides the quote she wants to use. It is:

• BEGINQUOTE

Eugenics

The eugenics movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries suffered from deep moral flaws. The movement was lead by the most prominent geneticists of the period--mostly white men-- who presumed to judge what constituted a desirable or an undesirable human being. They then attempted to enact a program in which the fundamental rights of people deemed undesirable would be grievously abridged. When their elitist ideas reinforced majoritarian prejudices, the programs were actually carried out, with the most terrible consequences.

As the dimensions of the current revolution in human genetics and neurobiology become apparent, the prospect of a return to the abuses of the past must concern everyone. One common reaction has been to demand that genetic engineering of human beings be totally prohibited or (as Hamer suggests in the passage cited earlier) be restricted to the prevention of “life-threatening” conditions.

In my view, enacting legislation along these lines would be immoral in its own way and would also deprive humanity of most of the benefits that the human genome project will have to offer. Are we to say to a child going blind from an inherited retinal degeneration, “Sorry, kid, we could have prevented this, but blindness isn’t life-threatening in modern society, and blind people can have a great quality of life, be productive citizens, and so on. We really couldn’t tell whether you personally would enjoy being blind or not, so we gave Nature the benefit of the doubt.” The child would not merely have a morally justified complaint against us, he or she would also have legal grounds for a “wrongful life” action.

Even if we expand the “life-threatening” criterion, as Hamer does later in his book, to include “quality-of-life” considerations, who is going to decide about the quality of life that merits intervention? Geneticists? An NIH committee? Congress? That would be the worst of eugenics all over again.

It seems to me that no repository of genetic authority can be safer that those very people who will bring the new generation of children into the world and nurture them to adulthood. The issue is not the rights of the infinite multitude of individuals who might have been conceived or born, but never were. The issue is, who is most likely to have an actual future child’s interests at heart?

By allowing parents to make these choices, we will introduce a new eugenics--a democratic, “do-it-yourself” eugenics that will circumvent the central evils of the past. The genetically underprivileged, who in the earlier eugenics were deprived of the right to reproduce, will now be free to decide whether they are indeed underprivileged or not, and if so to make the necessary adjustments in their offspring.

Democracy has its own evils. But the keys to successful democracy are education and freedom of speech. So it will be with the new eugenics. No one must understand that more clearly than gay people, who have an urgent and formidable task of persuasion in front of them.

• ENDQUOTE

It seems to me that LeVay is talking about reproductive freedom and not eugenics. There is no concern about the betterment of the race or mankind for example. It is also clear that LeVay thinks that traditional eugenics was wrong, something to be avoided.

Now, if you google "Simon LeVay Eugenics" the first page you get is by Andrea James. (The second and third are by other transsexual women closely linked to her campaign to attack LeVay because of his alleged views on transsexualism.) Here is that page, which you should read: http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/simon-levay.html Note that the page is entitled "Simon LeVay on transsexualism," and is part of the "Bailey-Blanchard-Lawrence Clearinghouse." Note how quickly James is to bring the Nazis into the discussion. Almost as quickly, she brings up J. Michael Bailey (whom she labels a "malignant bisexual"). This page, presumably, reflects Andrea James' goals for LeVay's wikipedia page. Indeed, an earlier version of LeVay's WP page, mostly written by her (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_LeVay&oldid=97371608) includes this unbelievably irresponsible sentence: "LeVay has been criticized for advocating fetal screening for traits like homosexuality in order to abort fetuses with unwanted traits." Note the lack of a citation (and the citation that follows in the next sentence doesn't say this).

Should LeVay's page have a section on eugenics? I think that it should not, even if it was written fairly with reliable sources. I do not believe that this topic has been sufficiently important in LeVay's career to justify it in a WP-length page. (Perhaps a book-length biography of him should have that discussion.) I certainly think that jokestress has failed to make a case that it should be mentioned here. (All she has done is argue that she has reliable sources that discuss the topic. That's not enough.)

I hope it is also clear that Andrea James/Jokestress is obsessed with smearing Simon LeVay with the worst eugenics innuendoes she can manage. This reflects her obsession, and not his. I think a better solution to her issue would be to create a "new eugenics" page (if it doesn't already exist) and to discuss these kinds of issues there. (Of course that means another page of hers I have to monitor, but I guess it's not that much more trouble.) Perhaps an even better alternative would be to add a section to her own biography about her eugenics (and other) obsession(s). This section could contain fair commentary and comparisons of what she says about people's writings and what they actually said.ProudAGP (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

As noted by the section head of his book above, LeVay introduced the term "eugenics," not me. ProudAGP quoted my "unbelievably irresponsible" sentence:

"LeVay has been criticized for advocating fetal screening for traits like homosexuality in order to abort fetuses with unwanted traits."

That sentence was a more neutral paraphrase of noted historian Roy Porter:

"Oddly, problems of this sort do not bother Dr. LeVay. Indeed, he cheerfully looks forward to the day when the 'new eugenics' born of the human genome project will enable women to abort fetuses likely to be carrying any traits they don't much care for, including homosexuality. [6]

LeVay's book has a section on eugenics, so should this article have a section on eugenics and the response to his statements? I believe it does. Jokestress (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

If "the book has a section on X, so this article should have a section on X" is an important criteria, then this small biography is going to be book-length. Proud, can you tell us offhand approximately what proportion of the book (or all of LeVay's books) is on this subject? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

A more accurate proportion would be the amount of non-trivial coverage analyzing LeVay's work in a eugenic context, compared to general analysis of his work. That could include discussion of his "'fictional' account of a neurogeneticist who attempts to eliminate the gay gene." Jokestress (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Jokestress put the word fictional in scare quotes? — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 00:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I forgot the second set of quotation marks around the citation - here's the full quotation:

Since eugenics, especially in its Anglo-American forms, has historically aimed to reproduce the "best" middle-class whites (presumed to be heterosexual), one cannot but tremble before recent cultural productions such as Jonathan Tollins's 1993 play The Twilight of the Golds, in which a pregnant woman and her husband debate whether or not to abort a fetus that has been identified genetically as "homosexual"; Andrew Niccol's recent film Gattaca (1997), in which same-sex love must literally be burnt out so heterosexuality can survive, and LeVAY's (1997) own "fictional" account of a neurogeneticist who attempts to eliminate the gay gene. Such works suggest eugenics is alive and well.

Source: Clemenson R, Gordo-Lopez AJ (2000). Eugenics and homosexuality. In Murphy TF, ed. Reader's Guide to Lesbian and Gay Studies. Taylor & Francis, ISBN 9781579581428

CAPs, italics, and quotes in original. I added the second set of quotations in my earlier comment. Jokestress (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Much better. That makes it clear that Jokestress did not, in fact, have any evidence to suggest that that play was anything other than fiction and that Jokestress was merely repeating what someone else said...also with no evidence.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 14:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The point was that I am not aware of many analyses of LeVay that don't mention eugenics, whether it's his fiction or his findings. That gets to WhatamIdoing's question regarding proportional coverage. While most analysis of science such as work by Evelyn Hooker is positive, most analysis of LeVay echoes Ordover or Halperin, who feel the search for a 'scientific' etiology of sexual orientation is itself a homophobic project and needs to be seen more clearly as such. Ordover calls it the myth of liberatory biologism. Jokestress (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

My concern is, as it was with prior edits of yours, phrasing of opinions as if they were facts. Analysis=opinion, feel=opinion, seen=opinion, myth=opinion. Putting fictional in scare quotes alluded to there existing actual evidence, of which there is none. Whether the content your edit was genuinely accidental or a willful misreprestation, there is no objective way to ascertain.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 15:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliably-sourced opinions that are verifiable are acceptable content for articles. We strive for verifiability, not "the truth." There is a preponderance of opinion that LeVay's work raises issues of eugenics, something he himself has acknowledged. I feel the article should reflect the substantial literature on the issues raised by his work, just as our articles on about Galton, Darwin, etc. do. We can discuss his authorial intentionality, which is how he tries to frame responses to his work, but it's clear that many scholars believe his work can have unintended consequences and is part of a larger historical context (which he tries to dismiss). Jokestress (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You ask me to repeat myself: My concern was your presentation of opinions as if they were facts. I have expressed no opinion regarding what to include in the article.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 16:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This page is for discussing article content, so I hope you will weigh in. Perhaps you have some citations that don't mention eugenics, which we can include for balance? Jokestress (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The following citations all refer to LeVay's findings without mentioning eugenics. All appear in peer-reviewed RS's. There exist several hundred more. I chose these particular ones as examples because they are highly impactful in their own right; all of these cites have themselves been cited by 20 or more RS's.

I apologize to anyone who feels that this list is excessive. I would not object to this list being deleted from this talk page after folks have had a chance to skim it. It was is by showing the extent of LeVay's scientific impactthat one could best judge whether the alleged association with eugenics is actually a relative fringe opinion that seems large only to those who disregard or are unaware of the full picture.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 17:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Allen, LS; Gorski, RA. Sexual Orientation And The Size Of The Anterior Commissure In The Human Brain. Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences Of The United States Of America, 89 (15): 7199-7202 Aug 1 1992.
  • Bailey, JM; Dunne, MP; Martin, NG. Genetic And Environmental Influences On Sexual Orientation And Its Correlates In An Australian Twin Sample. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 78 (3): 524-536 Mar 2000.
  • Bailey, JM; Zucker, KJ. Childhood Sex-Typed Behavior And Sexual Orientation - A Conceptual Analysis And Quantitative Review. Developmental Psychology, 31 (1): 43-55 Jan 1995.
  • Bailey, JM; Benishay, DS. Familial Aggregation Of Female Sexual Orientation. American Journal Of Psychiatry, 150 (2): 272-277 Feb 1993.
  • Bass, A. Dimorphic Male Brains And Alternative Reproductive Tactics In A Vocalizing Fish. Trends In Neurosciences, 15 (4): 139-145 Apr 1992.
  • Berenbaum, SA; Snyder, E. Early Hormonal Influences On Childhood Sex-Typed Activity And Playmate Preferences - Implications For The Development Of Sexual Orientation. Developmental Psychology, 31 (1): 31-42 Jan 1995.
  • Blanchard, R; Klassen, P. H-Y Antigen And Homosexuality In Men. Journal Of Theoretical Biology, 185 (3): 373-378 Apr 7 1997.
  • Blanchard, R; Bogaert, AF. Biodemographic Comparisons Of Homosexual And Heterosexual Men In The Kinsey Interview Data. Archives Of Sexual Behavior, 25 (6): 551-579 Dec 1996.
  • Blanchard, R; Zucker, KJ; Bradley, SJ; Et Al. Birth-Order And Sibling Sex-Ratio In Homosexual Male-Adolescents And Probably Prehomosexual Feminine Boys. Developmental Psychology, 31 (1): 22-30 Jan 1995.
  • Bogaert, AF; Hershberger, S. The Relation Between Sexual Orientation And Penile Size. Archives Of Sexual Behavior, 28 (3): 213-221 Jun 1999. . 11. Bogaert, AF; Blanchard, R. Physical Development And Sexual Orientation In Men: Height, WEight And Age Of Puberty Differences. Personality And Individual Differences, 21 (1): 77-84 Jul 1996.
  • Breedlove, SM. Sexual-Differentiation Of The Human Nervous-System. Annual Review Of Psychology, 45: 389-418 1994.
  • Breedlove, SM. Sexual Dimorphism In The Vertebrate Nervous-System. Journal Of Neuroscience, 12 (11): 4133-4142 Nov 1992.
  • Buck, R. The Biological Affects: A Typology. Psychological Review, 106 (2): 301-336 Apr 1999.
  • Byne, W; Lasco, MS; Kemether, E; Et Al. The Interstitial Nuclei Of The Human Anterior Hypothalamus: An Investigation Of Sexual Variation In Volume And Cell Size, NUmber And Density. Brain Research, 856 (1-2): 254-258 Feb 21 2000.
  • Byne, W. Medial Preoptic And Anterior Hypothalamic Regions Of The Rhesus Monkey: Cytoarchitectonic Comparison With The Human And Evidence For Sexual Dimorphism. Brain Research, 793 (1-2): 346-350 May 18 1998.
  • Carani, C; Rochira, V; Faustini-Fustini, M; Et Al. Role Of Oestrogen In Male Sexual Behaviour: Insights From The Natural Model Of Aromatase Deficiency. Clinical Endocrinology, 51 (4): 517-524 Oct 1999.
  • Chung, WCj; De Vries, GJ; Swaab, DF. Sexual Differentiation Of The Bed Nucleus Of The Stria Terminalis In Humans May Extend Into Adulthood. Journal Of Neuroscience, 22 (3): 1027-1033 Feb 1 2002.
  • Collaer, ML; Hines, M. Human Behavioral Sex-Differences - A Role For Gonadal-Hormones During Early Development. Psychological Bulletin, 118 (1): 55-107 Jul 1995.
  • Cooke, B; Hegstrom, CD; Villeneuve, LS; Et Al. Sexual Differentiation Of The Vertebrate Brain: Principles And Mechanisms. Frontiers In Neuroendocrinology, 19 (4): 323-362 Oct 1998.
  • Cooke, BM; Tabibnia, G; Breedlove, SM. A Brain Sexual Dimorphism Controlled By Adult Circulating Androgens. Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences Of The United States Of America, 96 (13): 7538-7540 Jun 22 1999.
  • Ellis, L; Blanchard, R. Birth Order, SIbling Sex Ratio, ANd Maternal Miscarriages In Homosexual And Heterosexual Men And Women. Personality And Individual Differences, 30 (4): 543-552 Mar 2001.
  • Fernandez-Guasti, A; Kruijver, FPm; Fodor, M; Et Al. Sex Differences In The Distribution Of Androgen Receptors In The Human Hypothalamus. Journal Of Comparative Neurology, 425 (3): 422-435 Sep 25 2000.
  • Ferveur, JF; Stortkuhl, KF; Stocker, RF; Et Al. Genetic Feminization Of Brain Structures And Changed Sexual Orientation In Male Drosophila. Science, 267 (5199): 902-905 Feb 10 1995.
  • Filipek, PA; Richelme, C; Kennedy, DN; Et Al. Young-Adult Human Brain - An Mri-Based Morphometric Analysis. Cerebral Cortex, 4 (4): 344-360 Jul-Aug 1994.
  • Finley, KD; Taylor, BJ; Milstein, M; Et Al. Dissatisfaction, A Gene Involved In Sex-Specific Behavior And Neural Development Of Drosophila Melanogaster. Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences Of The United States Of America, 94 (3): 913-918 Feb 4 1997.
  • Gahr, M. How Should Brain Nuclei Be Delineated? Consequences For Developmental Mechanisms And For Correlations Of Area Size, NEuron Numbers And Functions Of Brain Nuclei. Trends In Neurosciences, 20 (2): 58-62 Feb 1997.
  • Gaus, SE; Strecker, RE; Tate, BA; Et Al. Ventrolateral Preoptic Nucleus Contains Sleep-Active, GAlaninergic Neurons In Multiple Mammalian Species. Neuroscience, 115 (1): 285-294 2002.
  • Hall, JAy; Kimura, D. Sexual Orientation And Performance On Sexually Dimorphic Motor-Tasks. Archives Of Sexual Behavior, 24 (4): 395-407 Aug 1995.
  • Hall, JAy; Kimura, D. Dermatoglyphic Asymmetry And Sexual Orientation In Men. Behavioral Neuroscience, 108 (6): 1203-1206 Dec 1994.
  • Hall, LS; Love, CT. Finger-Length Ratios In Female Monozygotic Twins Discordant For Sexual Orientation. Archives Of Sexual Behavior, 32 (1): 23-28 Feb 2003.
  • Hamer, DH; Hu, S; Magnuson, VL; Et Al. A Linkage Between Dna Markers On The X-Chromosome And Male Sexual Orientation. Science, 261 (5119): 321-327 Jul 16 1993.
  • Kawata, M. Roles Of Steroid Hormones And Their Receptors In Structural Organization In The Nervous System. Neuroscience Research, 24 (1): 1-46 Dec 1995.
  • Kruijver, FPm; Balesar, R; Espila, AM; Et Al. Estrogen Receptor-Alpha Distribution In The Human Hypothalamus In Relation To Sex And Endocrine Status. Journal Of Comparative Neurology, 454 (2): 115-139 Dec 9 2002.
  • Kruijver, FPm; Fernandez-Guasti, A; Fodor, M; Et Al. Sex Differences In Androgen Receptors Of The Human Mamillary Bodies Are Related To Endocrine Status Rather Than To Sexual Orientation Or Transsexuality. Journal Of Clinical Endocrinology And Metabolism, 86 (2): 818-827 Feb 2001.
  • Kruijver, FPm; Zhou, JN; Pool, CW; Et Al. Male-To-Female Transsexuals Have Female Neuron Numbers In A Limbic Nucleus. Journal Of Clinical Endocrinology And Metabolism, 85 (5): 2034-2041 May 2000.
  • Lalumiere, ML; Blanchard, R; Zucker, KJ. Sexual Orientation And Handedness In Men And Women: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126 (4): 575-592 Jul 2000.
  • Li, AA; Baum, MJ; Mcintosh, LJ; Et Al. Building A Scientific Framework For Studying Hormonal Effects On Behavior And On The Development Of The Sexually Dimorphic Nervous System. Neurotoxicology, 29 (3): 504-519 Sp. Iss. Si May 2008.
  • Lippa, RA. Are 2d : 4d Finger-Length Ratios Related To Sexual Orientation? Yes For Men, NO For Women. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 85 (1): 179-188 Jul 2003.
  • Lippa, RA. Gender-Related Iraits Of Heterosexual And Homosexual Men And Women. Archives Of Sexual Behavior, 31 (1): 83-98 Feb 2002.
  • Lustig, RH. Sex-Hormone Modulation Of Neural Development In-Vitro. Hormones And Behavior, 28 (4): 383-395 Dec 1994.
  • Macke, JP; Hu, N; Hu, S; Et Al. Sequence Variation In The Androgen Receptor Gene Is Not A Common Determinant Of Male Sexual Orientation. American Journal Of Human Genetics, 53 (4): 844-852 Oct 1993.
  • Madeira, MD; Lieberman, AR. Sexual Dimorphism In The Mammalian Limbic System. Progress In Neurobiology, 45 (4): 275-+ Mar 1995.
  • Mann, DR; Fraser, HM. The Neonatal Period: A Critical Interval In Male Primate Development. Journal Of Endocrinology, 149 (2): 191-197 May 1996.
  • Mayer, A; Lahr, G; Swaab, DF; Et Al. The Y-Chromosomal Genes Sry And Zfy Are Transcribed In Adult Human Brain. Neurogenetics, 1 (4): 281-288 Aug 1998.
  • Mcfadden, D; Champlin, CA. Comparison Of Auditory Evoked Potentials In Heterosexual, HOmosexual, ANd Bisexual Males And Females. Jaro, 1 (1): 89-99 Aug 2000.
  • Mcfadden, D; Pasanen, EG. Comparison Of The Auditory Systems Of Heterosexuals And Homosexuals: Click-Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions. Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences Of The United States Of America, 95 (5): 2709-2713 Mar 3 1998.
  • Meyerbahlburg, HFl; Ehrhardt, AA; Rosen, LR; Et Al. Prenatal Estrogens And The Development Of Homosexual Orientation. Developmental Psychology, 31 (1): 12-21 Jan 1995.
  • Morris, JA; Jordan, CL; Breedlove, SM. Sexual Differentiation Of The Vertebrate Nervous System. Nature Neuroscience, 7 (10): 1034-1039 Oct 2004.
  • Panzica, GC; Aste, N; Vigliettipanzica, C; Et Al. Structural Sex-Differences In The Brain - Influence Of Gonadal-Steroids And Behavioral-Correlates. Journal Of Endocrinological Investigation, 18 (3): 232-252 Mar 1995.
  • Paredes, RG. Medial Preoptic Area/Anterior Hypothalamus And Sexual Motivation. Scandinavian Journal Of Psychology, 44 (3): 203-212 Jul 2003.
  • Paredes, RG; Baum, MJ. Altered Sexual Partner Preference In Male Ferrets Given Excitotoxic Lesions Of The Preoptic Area Anterior Hypothalamus. Journal Of Neuroscience, 15 (10): 6619-6630 Oct 1995.
  • Perkins, A; Fitzgerald, JA; Moss, GE. A Comparison Of Lh-Secretion And Brain Estradiol Receptors In Heterosexual And Homosexual Rams And Female Sheep. Hormones And Behavior, 29 (1): 31-41 Mar 1995.
  • Peterson, RE; Theobald, HM; Kimmel, GL. Developmental And Reproductive Toxicity Of Dioxins And Related-Compounds - Cross-Species Comparisons. Critical Reviews In Toxicology, 23 (3): 283-335 1993.
  • Pilgrim, C; Hutchison, JB. Developmental Regulation Of Sex-Differences In The Brain - Can The Role Of Gonadal-Steroids Be Redefined. Neuroscience, 60 (4): 843-855 Jun 1994.
  • Purba, JS; Hofman, MA; Portegies, P; Et Al. Decreased Number Of Oxytocin Neurons In The Paraventricular Nucleus Of The Human Hypothalamus In Aids. Brain, 116: 795-809 Part 4 Aug 1993.
  • Rahman, Q. Fluctuating Asymmetry, SEcond To Fourth Finger Length Ratios And Human Sexual Orientation. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30 (4): 382-391 May 2005.
  • Rahman, Q; Wilson, GD. Born Gay? The Psychobiology Of Human Sexual Orientation. Personality And Individual Differences, 34 (8): 1337-1382 Jun 2003.
  • Rahman, Q; Wilson, GD. Large Sexual-Orientation-Related Differences In Performance On Mental Rotation And Judgment Of Line Orientation Tasks. Neuropsychology, 17 (1): 25-31 Jan 2003.
  • Rance, NE; Young, WS; Mcmullen, NT. Topography Of Neurons Expressing Luteinizing-Hormone-Releasing Hormone Gene Transcripts In The Human Hypothalamus And Basal Forebrain. Journal Of Comparative Neurology, 339 (4): 573-586 Jan 22 1994.
  • Ravid, R; Vanzwieten, EJ; Swaab, DF. Brain Banking And The Human Hypothalamus - Factors To Match For, PItfalls And Potentials. Progress In Brain Research, 93: 83-95 1992.
  • Reite, M; Sheeder, J; Richardson, D; Et Al. Cerebral Laterality In Homosexual Males - Preliminary Communication Using Magnetoencephalography. Archives Of Sexual Behavior, 24 (6): 585-593 Dec 1995.
  • Resko, JA; Perkins, A; Roselli, CE; Et Al. Endocrine Correlates Of Partner Preference Behavior In Rams. Biology Of Reproduction, 55 (1): 120-126 Jul 1996.
  • Roselli, CE; Larkin, K; Resko, JA; Et Al. The Volume Of A Sexually Dimorphic Nucleus In The Ovine Medial Preoptic Area/Anterior Hypothalamus Varies With Sexual Partner Preference. Endocrinology, 145 (2): 478-483 Feb 1 2004.
  • Sandfort, TGm; De Graaf, R; Bijl, RV; Et Al. Same-Sex Sexual Behavior And Psychiatric Disorders - Findings From The Netherlands Mental Health Survey And Incidence Study (Nemesis). Archives Of General Psychiatry, 58 (1): 85-91 Jan 2001.
  • Schlaepfer, TE; Harris, GJ; Tien, AY; Et Al. Structural Differences In The Cerebral-Cortex Of Healthy Female And Male-Subjects - A Magnetic-Resonance-Imaging Study. Psychiatry Research-Neuroimaging, 61 (3): 129-135 Sep 29 1995.
  • Shah, NM; Pisapia, DJ; Maniatis, S; Et Al. Visualizing Sexual Dimorphism In The Brain. Neuron, 43 (3): 313-319 Aug 5 2004.
  • Shinoda, K; Nagano, M; Osawa, Y. An Aromatase-Associated Cytoplasmic Inclusion, THe Stigmoid Body, IN The Rat-Brain . 2. Ultrastructure (With A Review Of Its History And Nomenclature). Journal Of Comparative Neurology, 329 (1): 1-19 Mar 1 1993.
  • Swaab, DF; Chung, WCj; Kruijver, FPm; Et Al. Sex Differences In The Hypothalamus In The Different Stages Of Human Life. Neurobiology Of Aging, 24: S1-S16 Suppl. 1 May-Jun 2003.
  • Swaab, DF; Chung, WCj; Kruijver, FPm; Et Al. Structural And Functional Sex Differences In The Human Hypothalamus. Hormones And Behavior, 40 (2): 93-98 Sep 2001.
  • Swaab, DF; Hofman, MA. Sexual-Differentiation Of The Human Hypothalamus In Relation To Gender And Sexual Orientation. Trends In Neurosciences, 18 (6): 264-270 Jun 1995.
  • Swaab, DF; Slob, AK; Houtsmuller, EJ; Et Al. Increased Number Of Vasopressin Neurons In The Suprachiasmatic Nucleus (Scn) Of Bisexual Adult Male-Rats Following Perinatal Treatment With The Aromatase Blocker Atd. Developmental Brain Research, 85 (2): 273-279 Apr 18 1995.
  • Swaab, DF; Gooren, LJg; Hofman, MA; Et Al. The Human Hypothalamus In Relation To Gender And Sexual Orientation. Progress In Brain Research, 93: 205-219 1992.
  • Tobet, SA; Hanna, IK. Ontogeny Of Sex Differences In The Mammalian Hypothalamus And Preoptic Area. Cellular And Molecular Neurobiology, 17 (6): 565-601 Dec 1997.
  • Turner, WJ. Homosexuality, TYpe-1 - An Xq28 Phenomenon. Archives Of Sexual Behavior, 24 (2): 109-134 Apr 1995.
  • Wegesin, DJ. Event-Related Potentials In Homosexual And Heterosexual Men And Women: Sex-Dimorphic Patterns In Verbal Asymmetries And Mental Rotation. Brain And Cognition, 36 (1): 73-92 Feb 1998.
  • Wegesin, DJ. A Neuropsychologic Profile Of Homosexual And Heterosexual Men And Women. Archives Of Sexual Behavior, 27 (1): 91-108 Feb 1998.
  • Weinstock, M. Alterations Induced By Gestational Stress In Brain Morphology And Behaviour Of The Offspring. Progress In Neurobiology, 65 (5): 427-451 Dec 2001.
  • Yahr, P; Gregory, JE. The Medial And Lateral Cell Groups Of The Sexually Dimorphic Area Of The Gerbil Hypothalamus Are Essential For Male Sex Behavior And Act Via Separate Pathways. Brain Research, 631 (2): 287-296 Dec 24 1993.

The issue is that these are all from "scientific" sources. Historians and other scholars note that the "science" itself is the problem; the people engaged in this enterprise apparently cannot comprehend or don't care about the institutional systems of which they are part. See Roger Lancaster (2006), etc. What's interesting is how strongly proponents seek to suppress and discredit criticism of their field by "outsiders," by claiming the other scholars are not scientists and thus unworthy of consideration. See LeVay's "those who look to history" comment as a prime example. As Dr. Wyndzen noted, it's a convenient heuristic that allows them to ignore their historical context as well as their many critics. Jokestress (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I do think that the "eugenics question" is one that is commonly raised by some kinds of writers with respect to biological research on sexual orientation. LeVay, Hamer, and Bailey have all addressed it in one way or other. But that they addressed it doesn't mean that it should be on their pages. I think that jokestress wants (incorrectly) to imply that these people have some kind of eugenics motivation. Along with the possibilities I mentioned earlier (e.g., starting a "new eugenics" page), the general issue might have a subheading on the Biology and Sexual Orientation page. This would have the benefit of putting the issue in its proper context, which is much broader that Simon Levay. I continue to object to adding this to LeVay's page. I think that the final paragraph there now is apt, and all that needs to be mentioned there.ProudAGP (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The concern I have with what's in there is that he describes this as some sort of attempt to limn his authorial intent. While that may be his POV, what the scholars who do the sociology/history/philosophy of science say is that his intent isn't really relevant. What matters to them is not so much his enthusiasm for a "new eugenics" (which certainly raised eyebrows and elicited comments), but the fact that he seems so unconcerned about contextualizing his work within sociology, history, philosophy, etc. I feel we should include the quotation by him, but we should also include some of the commentary about his work in larger contexts. Jokestress (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I've said all I want/need to say. If you put it in without a clear consensus, I'll delete it.ProudAGP (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems clear that there is no consensus for including this material. Skoojal (talk) 04:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I must agree that it appears that consensus to include, or not to include this material, does not yet exist. It can change, of course, based on discussion. This article will become too long and lack sufficient sources if every accusation and defense is added in, especially lacking good cites. In any case, I am very proud of how all the "interested parties" are talking about the issue, rather that editing first. Thank you all for your patience. Bearian (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I will be quite happy to never edit this article again if Jokestress would agree to do likewise. Some of the material she added seemed very questionable; some of the material I added may also seem very questionable; the best thing might be for both of us to permanently leave the article alone. Skoojal (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I will consider agreeing to limiting our input to this talk page, but I feel the article as it stands does little to reflect scholarly opinion about LeVay's legacy and place in history. I feel we have both made useful contributions to the article, and I'd hate to see either of us enjoined from participation here. Jokestress (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that at this point one can asses scholarly opinion about LeVay's 'legacy and place in history', since he is very much alive (the term 'legacy' would apply only to the influence of people who are dead). Material that critically discusses LeVay's work can of course be added to the article - provided that it's done in a cautious and responsible way. Skoojal (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an unnecessarily narrow definition - "legacy" can apply to anything handed down by a predecessor. It's been almost two decades since LeVay's research caused a stir, and it has already been contextualized by historians, etc. (see above). We don't have to wait till someone's dead to assess their impact and situate them within larger contexts. Google George Bush legacy or (other famous person) legacy for examples. LeVay's being alive is not a good reason to avoid discussing analysis of his work in the article. Jokestress (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes Jokestress, but let's ask the inevitable question: who is going to add such analysis to the article? Continuing to edit an article about someone who has condemned you for how you have done it in the past and has made it clear he considers you an enemy is very rude. It might conceivably be justifiable in some cases, but hardly when the editor thus condemned is also guilty of BLP violation. You were probably guilty of that right from the moment you created this article back in 2005. Here's a link to the original version [7]. It contains the words, 'Some criticized the work as science by press conference.' Did the article say who the 'some' were? No. Was there a source? No (or at least it wasn't clear). Was it removed as a BLP violation? Yes [8]. The quote from Roy Porter, which was either very carefully or very carelessly worded in such a way that it implied that Porter's opinion was correct, when it clearly wasn't, probably was also a BLP violation. The way the article was filled to the brim with negative (and misleading) criticism was a third probable BLP violation. And now you are proposing to include commentary that compares LeVay to Carl Vaernet, a Nazi criminal who did research under Heinrich Himmler. When are you going to decide that you've done enough? Skoojal (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, I am not the one comparing LeVay's work to its Nazi precedents. That is being done by noted historians and other academics. LeVay has a habit of "condemning" people who disagree with him on his website, which is his right. Other people have "condemned" me and other Wikipedia editors offsite for editing their biographies, etc. because they didn't like how they were portrayed. The original article seems pretty neutral to me. The science by press conference comment should have been sourced to Murphy's Now What? The Latest Theory of Homosexuality. When the LeVay article was started, sourcing was not as codified as it is today, and WP:BLP wasn't even around.

LeVay has publicized some provocative findings and statements and got a lot of press and analysis for them. As such, I don't think we should shy away from covering that here. If LeVay felt he was libeled by Porter in that review, he could have sued the New York Times, but that case would have been laughed out of court. I don't plan to add it to the article, but I think we should discuss it so others can determine what should be done. I feel the current article is unbalanced because of the attempts to downplay this extensive literature analyzing his work. My goals with this discussion are to let a few disinterested editors down the road make a determination on content of this article. Jokestress (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Jokestress, the Nazi material is inflammatory, and you must be aware of that. I'm pleased that you do not directly say that the comparison of LeVay to a Nazi is correct. Unfortunately, the language you proposed might be taken to imply that it is correct, and one is left guessing whether this is accidental or not. Your choice of words was, 'Psychiatrist Vernon Rosario notes LeVay's "emancipatory intentions" before noting that the same kind of work is done by people with "less benevolent intentions," like Carl Værnet.' 'Notes' and 'noting' suggest endorsement of Rosario's opinions. It was exactly the same problem with the quote from Porter, where you wrote, 'A New York Times book review noted, "Indeed, he cheerfully looks forward to the day when the 'new eugenics' born of the human genome project will enable women to abort fetuses likely to be carrying any traits they don't much care for, including homosexuality."' That seemed to suggest that Porter's quite mistaken opinion was correct. You did not respond to that point. I suggest you do so now. Skoojal (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore: no, LeVay isn't in the habit of condemning people who disagree with him on his website. It is you, Jokestress, who has that unfortunate habit. Your original (and as you admit not well sourced) article was not neutral, but rather made it fairly obvious that your intent was to discredit LeVay, otherwise the 'science by press release' bit would not have been among the first things you added. The state of Wikipedia policies at the time is an absolutely dreadful excuse for your behaviour. James Cantor has noted how your edits to Wikipedia articles tend to make them resemble the websites you set up to attack people; your past edits here, and your current proposals, support his point. The extensive literature analyzing LeVay's work you're referring to was used to give a misleading and distorted picture of that work (something that you have never seriously attempted to rebut - so far as I know, you've never answered the response LeVay made to your criticisms of his work). I would again urge you to stop editing this article permanently; it is likely to do you more damage than any harm you might cause LeVay. I will be strongly inclined to reverse any changes you make that are not supported by a clear consensus. Skoojal (talk) 01:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

As an example, LeVay has attacked other people in the same manner on his website, like his spat with Stanford biologist Joan Roughgarden where he accused her of plagiarism, etc. I see no need to respond to his attacks - if he has a legitimate beef about the Wikipedia article, he can open an OTRS rather than complaining on AOL. The "science by press conference" charge did not originate with me but is a common criticism of all the homosexual etiology work, as is the criticism that the entire endeavor is a homophobic undertaking with roots in eugenics. The Nazi connection did not originate with me either, as I have already noted more than once. Your concerns about use of the word "noted" are misguided - it's synonymous with "wrote," or "said," etc. I know you have a huge problem with Roy Porter's opinion and want him censored from this article, but Porter's opinion is verifiable and appeared in the New York Times, among other reliable sources. LeVay certainly "enthused about introducing 'a new eugenics'" in his book, as noted by Hegarty. That may not trouble you, but it troubled Porter and a number of other academics cited above. It's no secret that it troubles me, but I believe my past edits here have been fair and neutral and independent of my concerns. Your attempts to expunge criticism of LeVay troubles me, too (it feels like WP:OWN), but I want to work on reaching consensus here. If you have further accusations and disparaging comments to make about my editing, please do so on my talk page or via email. Let's focus on content and consensus here. Jokestress (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone doing something twice doesn't amount to a habit in my view (the mention of Roughgarden was removed from LeVay's website long ago). The article by Timothy F. Murphy does use the words 'science by press conference', but it does not suggest that LeVay himself was guilty of this, and hence does not support your point. To portray LeVay's generally convincing response to the muddled criticism of him that you added to the article as an "attack" seems somewhat disingenous. Can you answer his response to the criticism or not? I'd like to ask whether LeVay's suspicion that you did not read the sources the article was based on is correct. Another question: why did you feel that a creationist website was a good source for criticism of LeVay? Skoojal (talk) 08:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

A 2300-word essay attacking Roughgarden is a bit more than a mention. LeVay's attempts to lump trans people with pedophiles by having Dr. Roughgarden present with NAMBLA in his class is part of his habit of attack, too. So is his Human Sexuality textbook. Of course Murphy considers LeVay guilty of science by press conference, along with all the other people whose work is cited in that piece. Harrub and Miller raise the same criticisms as many scientists and philosophers/ethicists/historians/sociologists. Your prejudice against them because of their faith and stance on biology and sexual orientation should not be reflected in the article. We can note their creationist affiliations and reasons for writing work critical of LeVay, but we should note that diverse groups, from religiously-focused anti-gay groups to other scientists, have concerns about LeVay's work. I disagree with NARTH and NAMBLA and many other groups on any number of points, but I don't believe their POV should be censored here because it doesn't match mine, unless it's determined they have not published in a reliable source. We need to present viewpoints in a fair and neutral manner. This is the last comment I plan to make on this page regarding LeVay's off-wiki attacks on me. If you wish to continue this, please write me on my talk page. It's barely relevant here. Jokestress (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comment about Murphy's article seems wrong to me. I believe it does not accuse LeVay of science by press conference (at the very least, it's not clear that this is what Murphy is saying). You might try asking other editors for their opinions. Regarding Harrub and Miller, if one wants to mention them in the article, it is of course better to say that they are creationists, rather than to vaguely identify them as 'some critics.' However, I'm not at all sure that what two writers for a creationist website have to say about LeVay is a useful or relevant addition; other editors may wish to comment. Skoojal (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor point: Using the factive verb note as a synonym for write or say is officially discouraged at WP:WTA for exactly the reasons that Skoojal raises. Noted more strongly implies the truth of the statement compared to wrote or said. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I'd never read WP:WTA before, but it's nice to see it supports me here. Skoojal (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit/undo

WhatamIdoing undid a recent edit to this article. I basically agree with the reason WhatamIdoing gave for this - except that it leaves the article reading, 'Some critics of LeVay questioned the his measurements' accuracy, since the structures are difficult to see in tissue slices, and also their appropriateness, since he measured in volume rather than cell count'. The first 'the' in that sentence shouldn't be there - I will leave it to someone else to remove it. Skoojal (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I've cleaned up my mess. (Of course, I thought I'd cleaned that up once before, so sing out if I've screwed it up again.) You are always welcome to clean up my typos.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Biography?

Why is the first section named ==Biography==? Wouldn't "Youth" or "Early years" or something like that make more sense? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems the biography section is describing work that contextualizes his sexuality research and should go in that section, after the education section. Jokestress (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The biography section originally was called 'Early life', if I remember correctly. I changed that, because it seemed the wrong kind of tone. 'Biography' is more formal. It can possibly be amalgamated with Education and career, but in my view should be kept separate from Sexuality research. Skoojal (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The whole page is a biography, so it seems a little silly to call one section of it a biography. I'm not sure that there's a perfect heading, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

In one sense you're right - all articles about people are biographies. Still, if you look at other biographies, you'll see that many of them have sections that themselves are called biographies. It seems like a minor worry. Skoojal (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sexuality research controversy

This section has got to be trimmed down considerably or go altogether. Right now this article is a coat hanger article for criticism of Levay's article from Science. I'm going to go through sources and start taking out inappropriate ones. For example, unsourced statements or ones from eugenics conspiracy nuts. C0h3n (talk) 05:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, it might be better to move the INAH 3 page information here and then to delete the INAH 3 page, since it doesn't really have any context outside of this, and possibly redirect it here. All of the criticism leveled at Lavey in this controversy section were from people outside of the scientific community and are not notable enough to merit mention in this article, except perhaps concerned women for america. If you really must, find some material from them, and clearly state the source and reference it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C0h3n (talk • contribs) 05:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The material you removed was relevant and was sourced, so I restored it. I'm extremely puzzled as to why you would think it should be removed. Your description of it as 'criticism of LeVay's article from Science' is misleading - LeVay's response to misunderstanding of his work certainly cannot be described that way. I do not think that merging INAH 3 with this article is a good idea. Skoojal (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

C0h3n, you said that the critics are all "outside the scientific community". I don't know anything about any of them; would you mind listing them here, and explaining why you think they are unqualified to comment? I'm certainly sympathetic to the idea that a random person on the street is unlikely to have enough detailed knowledge to provide a useful or accurate response, but we should probably discuss each case individually. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

For starters much of the information is not sourced at all. I am removing that right now again. The only one that is sourced is a book by an anti-eugenics nut that is probably a friend of jokestress. I am also removing Lavey's own comments on his work as it is rather obvious this was put in to cast doubt on his findings even though he is still very much behind them, as you can tell on his blog. He's just being a careful scientist when he gives these. 71.64.136.97 (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

On second thought I have moved things around a little and added LeVay's own support for the biological model and his own work as well as some information on why the INAH 3 was selected as all this criticism far, far outweighs the actual conclusions LeVay made. We can thank Jokestress's smear campaign and Skoojal's need to get involved in articles he has no qualifications for but his own anti gay biases for that. If someone wanted to actually read LeVay's article as I have done and read these "criticisms" as well as some of LeVay's own comments on his work and redo this entire section, it would be much appreciated. Skoojal likes to revert all my edits because I am not rabidly anti gay. Also as far as LeVay's own comments on the limitations of his work, all scientists do this when they author articles, and this page is using them for this specific paper to underhandedly cast doubt on the whole concept of biological effects on sexuality. I'll consider whether or not to remove them at a later time. C0h3n (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps if you decide to delete it later, then you can tell me then what you know about the source that you dislike. As I said, I don't know anything about any of these sources, and I'd like to know more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

C0h3n, you removed a comment by LeVay about how science hasn't proven that homosexuality is not a choice. This seems to be biased editing, as the comment was both sourced and relevant to the article. I restored that part. I considered readding some of the material you introduced (about primates and the sexual dimorphism of INAH3) but I did not, since I couldn't make it follow smoothly and considered the paraphrases you used risky. Your comment about my biases is irrelevant. People who don't have favourable views of homosexuality (and yes, that does include me, although my views are only quite moderately anti-gay and not 'rabidly' anti-gay as C0h3n so offensively suggests) are as free to edit Wikipedia as people who do have favourable views of homosexuality - or such is my understanding. Skoojal (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Except skoojal that it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS RESEARCH and is in place PURELY TO CAST DOUBT UPON HIS RESEARCH. I will be removing it again for the stated reason that it has nothing to do with his research but is a comment on someone else's research. Also, have you even read the text in question? I'm willing to bet not since you just take bits an pieces to try to cast doubt on his findings. This inclusion gives a strong slant to the POV that biology can't explain sexual orientation. 71.64.136.97 (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

First, please cut out the use of capital letters. It looks like shouting, it does nothing to help you make your case, and it is rude. I again remind you that there is a civility policy here. To respond to what seems to be your argument: This is biography of Simon LeVay, and his comments about homosexuality and choice are relevant to that biography. It makes no difference whether they concern LeVay's own research or not, since no one appears to be arguing that this article should be restricted to that subject only. LeVay's views of other people's research is important. You yourself have introduced material about LeVay's views of other people's research, so you cannot consistently argue that this part should be removed because it's not about LeVay's own research (and by the way, it doesn't cast doubt on that research in any way, as you seem to think - why would LeVay have made that comment if it did?). There seems to be a double standard at work here: removing material that questions a biological basis for sexual orientation is fine, but removing material that supports it isn't. You appear to be guilty of biased editing.

Second, yes, I have read the book.

Third, if you want to avoid accusations of edit warring, consult other editors (James Cantor, WhatamIdoing, ProudAGP, or even Jokestress) on their views. No one except you has so far objected to the inclusion of this material, thus you're in not in a very strong position to remove it. Skoojal (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal, why do you keep removing the content I have added to clarify the position of Levay on biological effects on homosexuality? Are you hoping that your 'reverted because x is not y' and reorganization would be enough of a smoke screen to prevent others or myself from noticing this?

And yes, sure, can we get James Cantor or someone else to go over this article as right now I feel skoojal is using it purely to cast doubt on LeVay's findings which were published in a very prominent journal and only criticized by people with existing agendas. C0h3n (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no problem in principle with adding a mention of LeVay's current views on biology and sexual orientation, and using his website as a source for this. However, you added a link to an article by LeVay that attacks a living person. That link has been added and removed several times. I was threatened with a block for readding it. The current consensus seems to be to not include it. If you're going to use something from LeVay's website, it might be best to use a different article. You might consider asking Bearian for his opinion, since he was the admin who threatened to block me for adding the link.

As for me using this article to cast doubt on LeVay's findings, that's pretty silly, given the amount of criticism of LeVay that I've removed from it. It feels very odd to be accused of being anti-LeVay after numerous people have complained about my being too pro-LeVay. LeVay's findings have been criticized by plenty of people (including, say, William Byne) who don't appear to have 'agendas' that might bias them. Skoojal (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

clean start

Pretend for a moment that I'm so fried right now I can barely see straight, much less track all of these changes. (I exaggerate only slightly.) I see that the current version is Skoojal's. C0h3n, please post right here on the talk page the exact words that you want to add (or remove), and give me a brief statement of why you think this improves the article. If you want to make lots of changes, then please pick the simplest or most important one. We'll talk about it here before anyone makes more changes, okay? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Fulfilling WhatamIdoing's request would be very useful for me to develop any opinion. As best as I can follow the edits, there appears to be disagreement over where some blocks of text should be located and whether a portion of that text should be removed altogether. It would be helpful if those two decisions were separated.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 22:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

For starters, I'd like to show how Skoojal continues to push his POV by using quotes out of context to cast doubt on these findings. I also suggest you read the article as it is available on LeVay's site which is linked in the references. Anyway, from the INAH 3 discussion page, here is a little sample of what I see as Skoojal's bias in action.

Skoojal wrote:

"You may want to take note of the following comment by LeVay in that paper, "In particular, the results do not allow one to decide if the size of INAH 3 in an individual is the cause or consequence of that individual's sexual orientation, or if the size of INAH 3 and sexual orientation co-vary under the the influence of some third unidentified variable." This again shows that "suggested" is the right word, not "concluded." Your wording has no basis in what LeVay wrote. Skoojal (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition, note that the article links to a website [1] that says, "LeVay suggested that this difference is related to sexual orientation." Skoojal (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)"

However, where is the quote I requested? (Skoojal claimed that LeVay used the word suggest, so it was more appropriate, and I asked for a quote of where it was used.) It is not present. Did Skoojal then lie that LeVay had used the word suggested? One source uses it. However, I do not think it is the most appropriate term. Nor is throwing in MORE biased and out of context quotations. LeVay also said, directly following the quote Skoojal provided:

"In rats, however, the sexual dimorphism of the apparently comparable hypothalamic nucleus, the sexually dimorphic nucleus of the preoptic area (SDN-POA), arises as a consequence of the dependence of its constituent neurons on circulating androgen during a perinatal sensitive period. After this period, even extreme interventions, such as castration, have little effect on the size of the nucleus. Furthermore, even among normal male rats there is variability in the size of the SDN-POA that is strongly correlated to the amount of male-typical sexual behavior shown by the animals. Although the validity of the comparison between species is uncertain, it seems more likely that in humans, too, the size of the INAH 3 is established early in life and later influences sexual behavior than that the reverse is true."

I think this shows Skoojal is the one that is doing the biased editing, attempting to cast doubt by taking quotes out of context. LeVay is anticipating criticism and then arguing against it, and Skoojal only quotes the parts where he anticipates that criticism and not any of his actual views and evidence used in the refutation. Anyway, this is enough editing for today, so I hope someone else will take it upon them to remove the grossly out of context quotes that Skoojal is trying to keep in this article to push his PoV. C0h3n (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but that was an off-topic posting. This is the Simon LeVay talk page, not the INAH3 talk page. C0h3n has posted this stuff here just to attack me. It should not be responded to - discuss this on the INAH3 talk page. There'd be a pretty good case for removing C0h3n's comment above from the talk page entirely, and this response too. Skoojal (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Exposing biased editing is now a "personal attack"? This shows that you push an agenda with quotes that are taken out of context to only show the POV you want to push. Also, I will provide refutations to all the quotes and instances of your POV when I have the time and energy to do so as was requested by WhatAmIDoing. For now, this was put in place to demonstrate that you push your POV. Perhaps THIS talk page was not the best place for it, but placing it on every major editor's page would have taken more time. C0h3n (talk) 03:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Posting irrelevant material to talk pages can qualify as a personal attack, yes. As you have admitted that this is not the correct talk page for the material above, I will remove it if other editors do not object. Skoojal (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I used the word perhaps, which means it is possible this was not the best place for the content. I did not admit that it should not be here. C0h3n (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, Skoojal, from the Wikipedia page on personal attacks:

"Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack."

C0h3n (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to note at this time that Skoojal is trying to censor this information by removing it from the talk page, which is not allowed. See the edit history. C0h3n (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing off-topic material from talk pages (including stupid, pointless arguing of the kind we've both been doing, and irrelevant material about totally different articles) is perfectly appropriate. I'm not going to edit war on a talk page, but I strongly suggest that someone else remove all of this - it's an inapprorpriate and dumb use of a talk page. Skoojal (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I am "Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest" which "is not a personal attack," from wikipedia's page on personal attacks. C0h3n (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest because I'm not involved in sexual orientation research. The above is just your way of saying that you don't like or agree with me - which is too bad. In Wikipedia, you have to try to work with people who hold different views from yourself, something you seem to have a serious problem understanding. I repeat my request to someone to wipe all this rubbish from the page. Skoojal (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to be involved in research to have a conflict of interest. Wiki says that "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." C0h3n (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Your aims appear to be to censor comments by LeVay that you wish he hadn't made, because they don't support your simplistic views of sexuality. As you drag a different article into this discussion, I'd point out that the same is true there - you have been trying to remove remarks by LeVay because you think he didn't really mean them, or some such nonsense. Skoojal (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I believe that scientists often anticipate criticisms of their articles, stating possibilities (like we do not know with 100% certainty if the INAH 3's volume is the result or cause of homosexuality) and then address these criticisms with arguments (like those from comparative neuroanatomy) and that you have a habit of presenting only their anticipation of the criticism (Ex: admission that it is not PROVEN that the INAH 3 determines sexual orientation). However, little is ever 'proven' in science and I am merely trying to make the articles reflect the direction of the evidnce. Is that clear enough? C0h3n (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This is off-topic rubbish. Stop it, and get a better idea of what talk pages are for. Skoojal (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pointing out the way you use quotes. I'll provide detailed analysis once I have time, which I could have done in this time had we not been arguing. Anyway, I wanted to say I'm sorry for being a bit rude, but your edits aggravate me because I think they are casting much undeserved doubt on the biological determination of sexual orientation. Perhaps they are actually well intentioned. Once again, sorry, and I'll try to show you how they are inappropriate at a time in the near future. C0h3n (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The way I use quotes is not about proposals for improving the article. That's what talk pages are for. This entire argument has been an extremely stupid waste of space, and it should be deleted, all of it. It shows a lot that you've wasted time and space on this rather than doing what you were requested to do. Skoojal (talk) 04:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the article could be improved dramatically by removing these quotes or providing more detail on LeVay's views rather than merely his admissions that x does not prove y or x and y are not proven, etc. That is what I'm saying. And as stated, I will do this at a time in the near future. Also, note that I apologized for the argument, so lets try to be civil. C0h3n (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"For starters", C0h3n, how about addressing my specific request, which is for you to type here the text that you think should be added to this article, with an explanation of where and why? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I see what you did there. C0h3n (talk) 07:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Shall I interpret your failure to provide suggested text as agreement that the current version of the article is satisfactory to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

request

Berian asked me to have a look once more here. C0h3n, I think the request to provide suggested text is highly appropriate, and is t he way we usually mediate such things. In earlier discussions we agreed the eugenics portion is not relevant. But his neurophysiological studies is the very basis of his very clear notability, and can not be removed, nor can the fact that there is controversy over them be ignored. The article must of course not be turned into an attack on him--as far as I am aware the validity of his work has never been questioned, though its applicability to the general topic has been, and the implications certainly have. DGG (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll do this to the best of my abilities once I have the time and proper motivation. However, I do not own the books LeVay has written, I suppose I could check my local libraries. What Skoojal labeled a 'personal attack' on him was my attempt to show that in general he is using quotes that make it seem as if the researchers do not think their results have any clear conclusion to be drawn from them when in fact they are being good scientists and admitting some ambiguity and then going on to argue why their results still strongly suggest x or y, which he leaves out. Notice that the entire "Books" section consists of quoting LeVay admitting the existence of such ambiguity. The same type of slant appears in the INAH 3 section, as well. C0h3n (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

you need to find other people saying this in 3rd party sources. What you propose to do amounts to an OR analysis of his writings. I am not necessarily defending the present state of the article,.DGG (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for working on this. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 03:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to explain why the article looks this way. I didn't decide at the start that it should look this way, rather, it evolved into this shape over a long period, due to my slowly considering and reconsidering what should be in it. Comparing the criticism of LeVay that Jokestress added to the article to his own work, I eventually realized that a lot of the criticism simply repeated points LeVay himself had already made. So, as I slowly removed the criticism, I added bits of LeVay's writing that were broadly similar to it. To start off with, these bits of LeVay's writing were scattered around the article, but as I kept on adding more and more of them, it seemed to make better sense to combine them into a single continuous passage, precisely in order to avoid the danger of selective quotation and the resulting distortion. Skoojal (talk) 08:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal, do you think you could perhaps add some of LeVay's arguments toward biological determination, especially when it relates to quotes from books? Or perhaps it may be better to go back to the sourced criticism and also show LeVay's response? I can easily add some from the article itself, but the books would be a lot harder for me. C0h3n (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Which arguments do you mean? I added the long quote from Queer Science about the implications of LeVay's research on INAH3 because that seemed the most relevant material. If there's anything else especially relevant or important, there should be not be a problem adding it. Skoojal (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't really say since I haven't read LeVay's books but I know from his own website he feels that the current evidence, including his own research, point towards biological determination. Perhaps if similar sentiments are expressed in his books they could be added to the books section. Also, does he ever criticize conservative groups for their "use or abuse" of the research? I think perhaps moving his statement about his study suggesting the INAH 3 is an important biological substrate to the end of the INAH 3 section would also be a good idea. Thoughts? C0h3n (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made the quote from LeVay's discussion of his INAH3 research in Queer Science even longer, mentioning LeVay's view that his research strengthens the case for the development of sexual orientation being linked to prenatal sexual differentation of the brain. Normally I wouldn't want to use such a long quote, but I'm doing so in this case as a response to your accusation of selective quotation/point proving. Skoojal (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Skoojal. I think the article is becoming better balanced. As you said, the quote is quite long. It may be better to paraphrase or summarize it instead, but as far as balance goes I feel it is a step in the right direction. I'll reread LeVay's paper and interviews pertaining to it and perhaps make additional alterations before addressing other issues in the books section, though I don't know when I'll be able to do this. C0h3n (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd also support paraphrasing. I think we're quoting too much and writing too little. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The more complex the point being made is, the more difficult paraphrase is and the greater the danger it involves. LeVay's points about INAH3 are very complex, and cannot easily be paraphrased. Skoojal (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

moved incorrectly named section

Levay's views on the origin of sexuality are not a discussion of his early life. Anyone who wants to move that back or change the title would do well to get consensus first. I would not normally support such a long quotation, but it does seem to be very clear about this general theoretical orientation. I of course recognize that the origin of his general views is totally irrelevant to the scientific validity of his biological work, and am open to the suggestion that the section should be moved later in the article than I have moved it, so as to present the neurobiological work first. DGG (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

DGG, you changed that without any consensus. And frankly, that section, with the title you've given it, is now significantly less accurate. 'Views on sexual orientation' is not an appropriate section title. Those comments were only about the 'origin of sexuality' insofar as they concern LeVay's own personal sexuality, and that of other people he knew. They're views on the origin of sexuality based on a discussion of his early life. They are autobiographical remarks, not a summary of views overall. Skoojal (talk) 06:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not Jewish

A recent edit added the descriptor "Jewish" to my name. I'm not Jewish. I don't think that people should perform substantive edits on their own Wikipedia bios, so I won't delete this edit -- am I being hyperpunctilious? But it would be nice if someone else would do so. (My name, by the way, is of Jewish origin -- perhaps the editor knew that and assumed incorrectly that I am Jewish.) Simon LeVay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbsttag (talk • contribs) 05:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for requesting a correction on this talk page rather than doing it yourself on the article, this stays comfortably within the guidelines of WP:COI. Should there be any other material in the article that you would like to challenge and is unsourced then please leave another note. As per the policy of Biographies of living persons any such information can be promptly removed on this basis but is open to discussion and potentially re-addition if sourced and of appropriate weight. Fæ (talk) 05:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This page needs to be rewritten

This page needs to be rewritten; it's a poor-quality article from start to finish. Even the lead is bad - a couple of sentences are not enough to properly introduce the subject, or even to explain why it deserves an article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Disagree completely. The lead is fine - says who he is, where is from etc and why he is widely known and a figure of some public controversy as well as a substantial author. (BTW if Wiki requires that people must 'deserve' to be written about, there are a hell of a lot of pages needing deletion. First I heard that was a 'rule'. And who judges 'deserts' - the Wiki police?) Far from being poor quality, the page covers his books and the main issue, his research on the 'gay brain', well enough. I just cant see why you feel an urgent need to re-write it. God knows this page has had already enough attention to launch a spaceship. Unraed (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)unraed

I am with Unraed. The article struck me as clear, well-written, and balanced. And the lead does explain why he (not "it") warrants an article. Maproom (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, this is a poor-quality article. The statement in the lead ("He is renowned for his studies about brain structures and sexual orientation") doesn't at all explain why LeVay's work is significant. What is it precisely about his studies about brain structures and sexual orientation that makes them important? The rest of the article is just a regurgitation of LeVay's own books - sloppy work, frankly. It needs to be cut back and rewritten. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"Openly gay"

Isn't it time to retire the phrase "openly gay"? "Openly gay" suggests that there's something wrong or embarrassing about being gay. Would we say "openly Italian-American," "openly Catholic," or "openly Republican?" IMO editors should avoid the phrase except when there's a specific need to distinguish the person from gay people who are "in the closet."Herbsttag (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Good idea - fixed. That section needs more details still. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Uh, I actually think that "He is gay" reads even worse. By itself, it's a "so what?" kind of statement. There should be some context to explain why it matters; otherwise, it is like adding the text "He is straight" to the article on Barack Obama. ImprovingWiki (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

That is fair. Better yet would be more information about his life, noting this particular aspect incidentally. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. LeVay has made it clear that being gay, realising that he is gay, is a major, differentiating & defining thing in his life and is directly related to some of his research and writing. In that way it is quite unlike saying Obama is straight Unraed (talk) 10:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)unraed

If you can find a suitable citation for the claim that "LeVay has made it clear that being gay, realising that he is gay, is a major, differentiating & defining thing in his life and is directly related to some of his research and writing", then there is no reason why information to that effect cannot be added to the article. But it would have to be worded in an appropriate and encyclopedic manner. "He is gay" is not by itself relevant or appropriate information; there has to be some explanation of why this fact matters. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Simon LeVay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014025217/http://gendersex.net/blog/archives/allen-garland-double-edged-sword-of-genetic-determinism/ to http://gendersex.net/blog/archives/allen-garland-double-edged-sword-of-genetic-determinism/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)