Template talk:Sexual orientation

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

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

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

Input is also welcome on improving the template in general.

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

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

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

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

1. some people self-identify this as an orientation (asexuality)
2. an academic paper has argued that this is an orientation (zoosexuality)
3. it is a focus of the main sexual orientation article (hetero-, homo-, bi-)
4. it is listed as an orientation in a mainstream, authoritative work such as an APA publication (I don't know that anyone has found such a thing, though I would like to)
5. is is an attraction between sentient and consenting human adults (Moni3's suggestion)
6. it is experienced as an inescapable attraction (Dev920's suggestion)
7. ...?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We removing something because you think it's silly is against Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. And feel free to read up on continuum, [3].--Cooljuno411 (talk) 08:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment:

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

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

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

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

Yours,

Nigel.

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

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

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

Comment:

Dear Dr Cantor,

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

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

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

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

Perhaps you should be correcting those before challenging me.

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

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

Yours,

Nigel.

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

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

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

Comment:

Dear Dr Cantor,

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

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

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

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

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

It's always 'you, you, you.' :)

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

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

Yours,

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

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

Comment:

Dear Dr Cantor,

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

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

Yours,

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

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

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

re-add Non-heterosexual

Resolved

 – Article rewritten and kept at AfD, link added, for now at least. Banjeboi 09:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It can wait until the AfD is completed but please re-add Non-heterosexual as it covers Sexual orientations that are ... non-heterosexual but also not bisexual or homosexual. Banjeboi 21:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal #1

Started a new topic for my earlier proposal, and whipped up a visual to boot. The important facet of this draft is that the controversial topics (zoosexuality, paraphilias) have been replaced by a single link (in red) to an article on "Alternative perspectives on sexual orientation" which discusses emerging divergent perspectives on what constitutes sexual orientation and the ongoing debate about this. Having no direct specific mention of these topics on this template keeps it from inciting controversy on pages where it is included, yet the new article provides access to this content, but with context and a "softer frame" that hopefully will be less controversial.

I would love it if we could treat this like an RfC, and keep comments brief and to the point. Support or Oppose, and why, or Comment. The lengthy discussions are starting to make my head spin and make this conversation impenetrable for someone new to the debate. Steve Carlson^Talk 06:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete my factually-correct comments. If anyone cannot cope with the details and, yes, that includes you, do not contribute until 'you' are able to do so. Yours. Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 07:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, it was not Steve who deleted my comment - my apologies to Steve if it appears so. Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, your version biasly denies autosexual, pomosexual, etc as sexual orientation labels. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

*Support, this is cleaner, and includes everything it should while having a link to the rest. --Alynna (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, your version biasly denies autosexual, pomosexual, etc as sexual orientation labels. It also, maliciously, ignores the existing published research, both relating to the actual phrase Sexual Orientation, and its proxy, Sexual Preference. It also provides undue 'support' to the mainstream abnormalities, over others. Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support, with the caveat that 'non-heterosexual' and 'pansexual' are non-typical usages, and a bit redundant with with the other categories. --Ludwigs2 19:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support, as is, pansexual is pretty mainstream so I have no issue including that. Non-heterosexual is less mainstream but both seem fine and I respectfully disagree they are "redundant". We could, however, save that discussion once the current issue has calmed. Banjeboi 21:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then if "non-heterosexual" is to be included, i want to see the inclusion of "pomosexual", because i am pretty sure if you do a google search you are going to find more pages on pomosexuality then non-heterosexual, which i remind you, is a much newer addition to wikipedia then pomosexuality. And i personally say "how dare you" to deny someone the same equality of the title of a "sexual orientation" . You are making people second class citizens by clearly saying their sexual orientations labels aren't sexual orientations but "sexual identities". And i just want to quote something called "separate but equal is NOT equal" so i don't see how anyone on this talk page gets off denying people the same equal access to the title as everyone else. Like the edit above, it says "sexual orientation LABELS", as in what people clearly label themselves, i don't know where you or anyone get at denying them the right to label their own sexual orientation, and why you people find such and issue with "sexual orientation LABEL", other than personal bias and disapproval. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You have made your perspective very clear. Let's see what other people have to say, and if there is enough opposition, I will make another proposal with auto- and pomo-. Steve Carlson^Talk 23:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The hetero-homo continuum should be clearly distinguished.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal #2

In an attempt to accommodate the objections from the above proposal, here is a new version. If you support this version and voted Support for the previous proposal, please strike out your first vote and comment so you only vote in favor of one version. Again, please limit your comments to Support, Oppose or Comment, and a brief and to-the-point comment. Thank you! Steve Carlson^Talk 01:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I would be okay with this, if other people like it. Putting the hetero-homo continuum on as a regular link and not a section header is an acceptable compromise. I don't think "pomosexual" belongs here, as pomosexual people explicitly don't identify with sexual orientation, but if it will make people stop screaming at each other, than whatever. Perhaps things that not orientations (the continuum, non-heterosexual, pomosexual) could go in another section? --Alynna (talk) 04:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

What if we moved non-heterosexual to the "Research and Theory" section, since it's an umbrella term used in academic circles and not an orientation, do the same with the continuum, since it's also theoretical and not an orientation in and of itself, and leave pomo where it is, since it is a way that a person can conceptualize their sexual identity, even if it is a rejection of mainstream labels? Steve Carlson^Talk 05:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Whose 'mainstream' ... that of one portion of the USA? I have not seen Foucault mentioned once, here. Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 07:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds good. --Alynna (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. too many things that are not viewed as orientations are added to the list, and this version will just foster confusion about the differences between orientations and identities. --Ludwigs2 22:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unlikely this will gain widespread support but just to be clear I feel this is going in the wrong direction adding items that are seen as contentious. Banjeboi 01:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal #3

And a third proposal based on Alynna's feedback on version 2. Please vote Support for only one of these! Steve Carlson^Talk 05:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good to me. --Alynna (talk) 06:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose For all the (apparently ignored) reasons provided. Where are Pansexual · Pomosexual · Autosexual in the (albeit irrelevant) APA definition? The answer is simple; the main title becomes Sexual Orientation/Preference [Labels] [I can go with, for sure, because labelling is all we are talking about, here] and all the false boundaries, being maintained by the bigots, collapse. For now, I am willing to support 'my' grey-lined version, above, so as to assist the LGB 'community' and others, during their uncomfortable transition. Yours. Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

All the previous proposals have explicit mentions of paraphilias and zoosexuality, which is what we're trying to address by moving them to Alternative perspectives on sexual orientation. If you want to make a new proposal that incorporates this idea, feel free, I'm only trying to facilitate this discussion a little. I would be happy to help you start a new draft in your user space. Steve Carlson^Talk 07:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate that and I am willing to compromise, as stated, and I have made my input on structure (although I would now like the title to be Sexual Orientation/Preference [Labels] -'Labels' debatable). Pedosexual/Zoosexual and Pedophilia/Zoophilia are not the same things. Being Pedosexual or even 'having Pedophilia' is no different, from being homosexual ... scientifically (it's in the brain and not of one's volition), legally (they are 'not illegal') or semantically (see this thread). If anyone doubts this, then they do not understand this issue, and they have little business contributing to edits. 'You' are conscientiously trying to make them different, by placing them in some low-level, second-class citizen, theoretical category. Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Nigel, I understand your perspective. We are arguing about socially constructed labels and caetegories. But socially constructed as they are, they are nonetheless very real and emotionally laden. "Sexual orientation" is a term that is highly associated with the LGBT community, which is working very hard to achieve understanding and parity against heterosexism. Can you understand that people might not want this word associated with acts/beliefs that are considered illegal (conflating pedophilia with child molestation) or morally wrong according to many religious beliefs? Whether or not they are correct to judge, it is these beliefs that inform the social construction of these labels and categories that we're arguing about. So until the major prevailing attitude shifts, this systemic bias is reality, and this template's role is to represent that social construction. The overwhelming majority of the literature contradicts your position, which of course may reflect systemic bias, but it still makes the perspective you advocate a fringe perspective. Thinking about it, Wikipedia policy actually encourages that its content reflects the systemic bias of the people and cultures that contribute to it, via WP:RS, which introduces the systemic bias of mainstream media, academians and publishers. So it's admittedly biased, but wikipedia is not the platform for advocating that sort of change. So while it may seem like I am "conscientiously trying to make them different", what I am actually trying to do is use WP:WEIGHT to guide us towards a resolution. Steve Carlson^Talk 09:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Do I care if I offend 'them' when I tell 'them' that (most of 'them') have one head, two arms and two legs? Of course not, because it is the verifiable truth. What if I conflate being homosexual with gay rape? Are you suggesting that, worldwide, being LGB is not religiously immoral? Can you see these fallacious positions? It's time to smell the coffee, again. Wikipaedia is 'here' to reflect verifiability, not to perpetuate social constructions or prejudices. If this is not true, it is a weakness of the Wiki (which I have already alluded to). I will say again ... can you not see the legitimate sources I have provided? ... and the fact; Sexual Orientation = Sexual Preference, so I have all that literature behind 'me', as well. This means "The overwhelming majority of the literature contradicts your position?" is, in fact, a falsehood. Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 09:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I have seen your references, but there are thousands of others that are still accepted by the academic community that do not discuss these topics as part of sexual orientation. Again, WP:WEIGHT. Steve Carlson^Talk 09:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me be very clear. I do not really care about any structure of this wiki. I know the lunatics are running the asylum ;) I know the lobbyists, the powerful and those with vested interests are in the ascension (perhaps they always are). I am here, to offer a verifiable perspective, which is no more fringe than any other (quite the opposite, in the case of MAAs), which people simply ignore, because it serves their purpose, or they are at their level of understanding. This is the problem with the Post-Modern era, however, I still have to survive in it and try to change it. So, I withdraw any support or opposition. Do what you will ... the day knowledge becomes a democracy, is the day, when .... well, we have a PM era. I have said my piece (thank you all) and will discuss issues, when I see fit. Yours, Nigel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 09:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, you did not carry out the literature task I set 'you':

"... and, possibly, finally, ‘Sexual Orientation’ replaced ‘Sexual Preference’, as the more acceptable, PC term (again, the LGBers doing their stuff). Now, Google for ‘Sexual Preference’ and ‘Paedophilia’ and see how many papers you get. Now, mentally, substitute the word ‘Preference’ with ‘Orientation’. I trust you are bright enough to see my point." Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 10:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

And yes, it is a weakness of the wiki model. Steve Carlson^Talk 09:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose For the same reasons covered previously. Pomosexual and Autosexual are not on an equal footing with homosexuality or heterosexuality by a long shot. Heterosexual-homosexual continuum was created three weeks ago; likely as a direct result of these discussions. Although possibly a worthy candidate after improving it needs a fair amount of work to allow issues to be sorted out and NPOV concerns to be addressed. For the same reasons I wouldn't want to see questioning or bi-curious even though they are also related. gynephilia and androphilia is another example of an article that's related to this but the article itself needs more work to justify it being held in the same regard as the rest. Banjeboi 09:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I see what you are saying (although you do not actually know if they are or not, because they are all inconsistently-defined labels), knowledge and verifiability are not some form of stamp/card-collecting exercise, requiring 'equal footing'. Sexual Orientation/Preference is sexual attraction to the object (and I prefer only physiologic, but that's just the positivist in me), and not one of Sexual ID (i.e. gender). Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the fact that an article isn't up to snuff is reason to exclude it from the template - having it on the template may actually help attract the attention of editors who can help. Steve Carlson^Talk 09:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hell yeah, why is 'Snuff' not on the list? ;););). Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 10:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally I would have opposed non-heterosexual before it was rewritten and reliably sourced; now everyone can look at the article and get a fairly good idea of what the term is about and how it's used, etc. The problem with most of the other articles is not that they are non-notable but that the articles themselves need so much more that we remain in trenched battle with fairly reasonable questions of what is this?, is it notable? and if so how? If pomosexual were better written it would be evident to all that it's a neologism that's notable enough but just barely. The issue, IMHO, is scope; an old version of alternative sexuality has a starting list of what could be endless debates. My hunch is we should err on the conservative side to stop the edit-warring altogether. Work on improving articles then see which ones seem stable, neutral and reliably sourced enough so adding them to the template remains a civil and productive process. Banjeboi 10:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support, loosely,, not my preference, doesn't deny pomosexual and autosexual but does deny other. A step in the right direction but not all the way there. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal #4 withdrawn

personally, I'd rather see something like this: User:Ludwigs2/:sandbox

it separates out the conventional usage from non-standard usages, without leaving out anything relevent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs)

• Oppose. Appreciate the effort but categorizing as "standard" and "alternative", for starters, would seem to inflame problems. Alsi I think we'd be better to leave off the contentious items and sort them out bit by bit as there doesn't seems to be widespread support. Frankly, the voracity of debate and volume has repelled many of those who have previously weighed in. Extra bold changes should likely be shelved for thoughtful, constructive and more widely accepted ones. Banjeboi 00:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The designation of "standard", with the "non-standard" ones halfway down the template, has POV problems. I wouldn't mind having homo, hetero, and bi first in the list of orientations at the top, but they shouldn't be the only ones up there. At a minimum, "pansexual", which is just as much about gender as "bisexual" is, should be in the same section as the other gender-based orientations. Also, "asexual" is noncontroversial and should be in the main section. --Alynna (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • understandable, and I thought that might be a problem; I'll go ahead and withdraw this as a proposal. I was just looking for a way to distinguish the conventional categories from the neologisms. the voracity of the debate (as Banje put it) is a problem though... is there any way to convince these 'repelled' to come back and weigh in on the various proposals? it would be nice to get supports and opposes from people who have recently been quiet on the issue; that might offset some of the more personal comments that have been flying around. --Ludwigs2 00:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I think once the RfC ends - which I believe is 30 days long - so a few days from now, we can archive major chunks of the talk page to help clean it up. That will help with current volume. Nigel seems to be a bit of a newby but their postings have progressed to more of a constructive format so that dialog has also helped make conversation more fluid. My hunch is all but the most conservative proposals will fail to gain widespread support and even Steve Carlson's proposal has one major problem - the article isn't written yet so we can't really say include it until we can see it to ensure it comes close to being acceptable. Based on wisdom and the state of the other articles that I've previously mentioned this is a hurdle indeed. I very much admire Cooljuno411's passion for these subjects but as a word of friendly advice from my experience at AfD we want to avoid starting a fork-ish article then see either it or pomosexual et al targeted for deletion or a merge. Steve Carlson, I think, has a good concept of directing readers to a link where the articles can be found category:sexual orientation might be an option. All the more problematic articles are listed without weight or POV - it's simply a category list. It includes other gems previously left uncovered in these discussions like polysexuality, monosexuality and, possibly my favorite gay bomb. Instead of creating "Alternative perspectives on sexual orientation", which I think will cause more problems as mentioned above, would switching out for this category link seem to be an elegant solution? Banjeboi 01:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
      • hmm. assuming I understand what you're suggesting, I'll edit the withdrawn template to match - is this what you meant? --Ludwigs2 23:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are referring to my 'personal comments', then please do me the good favour of naming me, so that I may respond to you. They are 'repelled', because 'I' am, quite simply, correct. Now, the question is, why are ‘you’ still here selling the same tosh? The reason this situation is still not resolved, is that 'you’ are arguing from incorrect foundations and 'your' fallacies and prejudices have been exposed, and ‘you’ do not know what to do. What do you think the true, evidence-based intellectual does, in these circumstances? Keeps flogging that dead horse? - flog away. Ironically, your proposal is not far from being acceptable (if I was stating a position), but, once again, your prejudice makes it painfully-difficult for you to conceive the other widespread sexualities (now removed) in their rightful category. Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Nigel, first off please try to post your comments after others so they remain in chronological order, this helps others understand context as well as who is stating what. I think it's a mistake to presume exactly why editors do or don't something so let's just agree that there are fewer people participating at the moment and hope that we can sort out some consensus that also abides by the spirits of what they had stated as concerns. Banjeboi 19:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Noted TY. I am merely commenting. I opted out of consensus, earlier. Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I will now cease from commenting, until after the template is finalised. Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Nigel, I wasn't referring to you particularly; no offense. that comment was just a recognition of the heated nature of this debate, and the fact that there are only a handful of vocal participants in the discussion. more opinons are always a good thing. --Ludwigs2 23:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality and bisexuality in animals

Once the above issues have been settled I'd like to see homosexuality and bisexuality in animals re-added, possibly under the "Study/research" section. Banjeboi 10:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

In "Sexual orientation/ in human sexuality"? Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The article covers why the subject is studied - that is can we infer anything about the naturalness of non-heterosexuality in animals and are there implications for us human animals. It also covers heteronormative bias in research which also would seem relevant. Again, this could wait until the above debates have been sorted out. Banjeboi 00:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a reasonable thing to have in the study/research section. --Alynna (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Does it? No matter ... PM tosh once again. Everything animals (human and non) do is 'natural', for we are part of 'Nature', not divorced from it. I will not bother trying to illustrate the ridiculous nature of 'your' other PM concepts. No offence to you, intellectually, ‘you’ are just like a child with a semi-automatic pistol, fully-loaded. There is a lot of it about and is due to poor education and vested interests. I will take the 'newbie’ comment, above, as being a literal statement on my presence here and no more than that. Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I find your comments quite offensive and encourage you to strike them out. That article speaks of exactly what you refer - the naturalness of their sexual expression and how it is seen in research and mainstream cultures. Banjeboi 19:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Offense is part of learning, progress and the pursuit of knowledge. It is also explicit, within our Convention on Human Rights, to offend, via Free Speech. I know you find that very difficult to accept, but you will learn, in time ... if you really wish to learn. The title is clear, this template is about Human Sexuality. Your cabal have yet to deal with that. Change the title, if you so wish (or do not). Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Offending people on Wikipedia as a practice is forbidden per our policies on civility, please work a better working environment for all editors. If people choose or otherwise disregard your wisdom that doesn't open the door for attacks of any kind. As for the cabal accusation please see these words of wisdom. Banjeboi 05:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sexology

Once the above issues have been settled I'd like to see sexology re-added, possibly under the Study/research section. Banjeboi 10:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

this would also be a good addition. --Ludwigs2 00:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)