Talk:Sexual orientation

proposals for 1st 2 sentences

As my knowledge is limited, I'd like to propose these edits to the lede, rather them do them myself:

The first two sentences should be changed from "Sexual orientation describes a pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to males, females, both, or neither. In research fields, these attractions are subsumed under heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality." to "Sexual orientation describes someone's pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to the other sex, the same sex, both, or neither. By convention among most organized psychologists, these attractions are subsumed under heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality, respectively." Reasons: Replacing "males" and "females" and adding "respectively" allow the two sentences to track each other; changing "a" to "someone's" provides a referent for the other or same sex; and "[i]n research fields" sounds too much like academe is making these decisions, and that opens the article up to some professor or less advocating for a new sexual orientation, rather than relying on established psychology organizations. Argualy, "most organized psychologists" should be limited to "most U.S. organized psychologists" or "most Western organized psychologists" or some such, but maybe that's not needed.

Then, if the first sentence was edited as above, perhaps we should replace "someone's pattern" with "an adult's or adolescent's pattern" because, since the sentence supports a relationship that is only emotional fitting a sexual orientation and a typical child is emotionally attached to two parents, perhaps we should avoid having that misunderstood as a bisexual relationship. It's still not perfect, though, since children can have sexual orientations (given that some adults say theirs were formed when they were children). And maybe, since this is generally about sexual orientation, there'd be no serious misunderstanding anyway, and "someone's" is good enough.

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC) (Changed one proposed phrase and discussed it: 15:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

Thanks for weighing in, Nick. And "limited knowledge"? You used to deal with sexual orientation topics often at Wikipedia, at this article, and still weigh in on them enough elsewhere.

But as for your proposals, I have to say I mostly prefer the current wording. Not only does the current wording better correspond to the way the first line of the heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality articles are, I don't consider it to be WP:Weasel word-ish. "Someone's," however, is weasel-wordish in my opinion. Immediately upon reading it, it left me asking "Who?" And the wording "an adult's or adolescent's pattern" is not much better because of the complications you noted that come with that; some people cite that they knew they were gay or straight as early as five years old, maybe even at three. Also regulating the terms to people right off the bat negates the fact that some researchers assign these terms to non-human animals (such as Homosexual behavior in animals). They don't usually say that non-human animals have a sexual orientation or that they have a romantic leaning, but they do describe some non-human animal acts as "heterosexual" or "homosexual."

I also disagree with using "other sex." Why use "other sex" when we can clarify with "opposite sex"? Sure the American Psychological Association (APA) uses "other sex" once, but that doesn't mean that we should. I don't see why "most organized psychologists" should be limited to "most U.S. organized psychologists" or "most Western organized psychologists," per what I stated above. It gives the implication that these categories are only used by Americans or the Western world, when that is not true. And either way, even people who don't use these terms still fall into these categories. They are just names for romantic/sexual behaviors and acts. If a man only has a sexual preference for women, but doesn't use or know of the term "heterosexual," he is still heterosexual. Even if he goes by a different name to describe his sexual orientation, it is then just a synonym for "heterosexual." It's also the reason I don't even feel we need to clarify that these categories are used by psychologists. It's not as though psychologists are the only ones to use them. But, as shown above, I was trying to compromise by using "In research fields."

All that said, I don't mind using "the opposite sex, the same sex" in place of "males, females. And though I disagree with your feelings on what "In research fields" implies (and can't see much difference in your alternate wording for it), I don't mind removing "In research fields" and replacing that with "By convention among most organized psychologists, these attractions are subsumed under heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality, respectively." I would rather "psychologists" be replaced with "researchers," though. "Researchers" is also more accurate, since the type of field these people are in varies.

Those are my thoughts, obviously. Anyone else with thoughts on the rewording? Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

How about Sexual orientation describes a person's pattern of… ? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I prefer that to "Someone's" and "An adult's or adolescent's pattern," but I still don't feel that we have to clarify and remain a little iffy on initially regulating the term to humans. But then again, like I said before, researchers don't usually assign non-human animals a sexual orientation. So maybe I'm making a big deal about nothing there? After all, the first line is about describing what sexual orientation is (including emotional/romantic feelings that are usually considered to be the domain of humans) more so than it is about the terms that have been used to refer to both human and non-human sexual acts. We could always address later in the lead that terms like "heterosexuality" and "homosexuality" have also been used to refer to the sexual acts of non-human animals. Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I do weigh in now and then but it's not a subject I've read up on nearly as much as in some other subjects, proportionately to the size of the field. I often don't feel I know enough to edit on this subject.

I hadn't checked the other articles. Parallelism of the ledes or subject treatments is a good issue.

"The other sex" and "the opposite sex" are differentiated in feminist discourse, which posits that oppositionalism distances the people who are of the sex not our own, with a resulting objectification of one sex. A contrary argument might be a need to preclude a claim that there are three or more genders (sexes), a claim not recognized in sexual orientation discourse.

On animals' sexual orientations, I suppose ethologists will study that and do so within our lifetimes. It would be empirically hard but not conceptually: one could look for animals that tend to be in groups, look for homosexuals among them, look for community rejection on nonsexual grounds so researchers would know how the members of the species go about rejecting, and look for signs of more frequent rejection of the homosexual members by the heterosexual members, the premise being that when a community accepts the nonheterosexual a sexuality is a sexual orientation. So I'd be inclined to edit in such a way that does not preclude such a possibility, although I doubt there's a Wikipedia policy that forward-looking when some would debate how much animals think beyond rudimentary levels (many used to doubt animals thought at all).

I thought psychologists were the primary definers other than politicians, religious leaders, and laics and that if, say, sociologists offered definitions they probably did so essentially by deference to psychologists. The APA's definitions have legal and political weight that academics' classifications would not in this field. I think the terms "researchers" and "research fields" are too vague, but I don't know what else to suggest, given that I'm not all that well read in the field.

Limiting geographically was because I don't know enough to know how this should be handled respecting sexual orientations. I think P.R. China has accepted homosexuality's legitimacy. If there are no competing classifications by major organizations in the field elsewhere in the world, no limitation is needed.

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Nick, I made this section a subsection of the #Definition in the lead section because it has to do with the same thing and is a result of that discussion. Did you revert the heading formatting because it bothers you?

Yes, by the other leads, I mean how the Heterosexuality and Homosexuality articles start off saying "is the romantic and/or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the [fill in the type of sex and gender here]" and then go into "As a sexual orientation..." The Bisexuality article is different because it combines the two and says "is sexual behavior or an orientation involving physical and/or romantic attraction to both males and females, especially with regard to men and women." The reason it says "especially with regard to men and women" is to make clear that the term is not only used to refer to human sexuality. A little below in the lead, we address how the term is used to refer to non-human sexuality as well...and there is a section on it in the article (though we point to the Animal sexuality and Homosexual behavior in animals articles to mainly address that).

I understand that "the other sex" and "the opposite sex" are differentiated in some feminist discourse, but I don't believe that should be followed here. It's ambiguous when it should not be. We shouldn't have the Heterosexuality article say "between members of the other sex," for example. We should be clear that we are talking about the opposite of the person's sex. If it's not the same sex, it's the opposite. Researchers have not identified "a third sex," not typically anyway, unless we mean intersex. As you know, there isn't a sex outside of the male and female biology/anatomy. A being is either male, female, or a combination of both. And even with intersex individuals, and there being more to it then defining them as "male" or "female," their chromosomal makeup is still used to identify them as either "male" or "female" and (negating incongruent genitalia or some other incongruent aspect, such as breasts) they outwardly appear as one or the other (no pun intended). This is even true in very "unusual chromosomal sex" cases such as Turner syndrome. Not to mention, they typically identify as either male or female. Now gender is another matter. People may say they are neither man nor woman and researchers have suggested more than one gender, which is what the Third gender article covers, but that is different than "third sex." Don't get me wrong: I know that there are also people who don't identify as male or female, but the article Third Gender is not titled "Third sex" for the reasons I just went over. We can be more inclusive with the sex/gender issue by simply having the lead say "Sexual orientation describes a pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to the opposite sex, same sex, both or a combination of the two (intersex), or neither." Or something like that. Or Sexual orientation describes a pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to the opposite sex, same sex, both, or neither, and the genders that accompany them." Or something like that. The latter also corresponds to the other sexual orientation articles that mention gender due to the restrictiveness of "sex." We just had a discussion about that. See Talk:Homosexuality#Sex and gender. I definitely feel that "opposite sex" should stay, since that is specific and accurate with regard to how heterosexuality is defined.

About non-human animals' sexual orientations... Like I stated, they aren't usually assigned a sexual orientation. I can only think of instances such as the gay penguins when they are. When studying non-human animals' sexualities, researchers don't usually call these animals "heterosexual" or "homosexual"; they refer to the animals' behaviors as "heterosexual" or "homosexual." Remember that these terms can refer to behavior as much as sexual identity. A person, for example, may identify as heterosexual but engage in homosexual activity on occasion or while in prison. This is one reason that the Heterosexuality and Homosexuality articles are not titled Heterosexual and Homosexual. The "ality" part makes it clear that we are not just talking about sexual identity.

Researchers who study sexual orientation and sexuality vary. In addition to psychologists, there are also sexologists, such as James Cantor (User:James Cantor who works here, and who often provides me with information and/or advice), scientists and psychiatrists. Sexologists are also generally the ones with the most expertise in the fields of sexual orientation and sexuality. All of this falls under the scope of "psychological." The term psychologist is as vague as "researchers," but I don't believe that most people would call a scientist "a psychologist." All of this is why I say "researchers" should be used instead. And I already stated that I don't mind "In research fields" being replaced. Flyer22 (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

On the heading, I thought the two topics were addressing overlapping but different concerns. It appeared the prior topic had been sort of resolved for the time being, and I didn't want to give the impression that my proposal was a direct response to the problem of the prior topic, especially if stabilization of the latter was en route. I've also noticed that when one topic gets long even with subdivisions some editors start slapping TLDR on it and then participating anyway, and the separation makes that less likely.

Other/opposite: I'm fine with what you're saying.

On a third gender other than from body form ambiguity, I've generally suspected that term was a way of denying that a community's lesbians and gays are members of the regular people: a slight against them disguised as acceptance, and I'm not surprised at the lack of acceptance of the term among APA and its kindred.

That "[s]exual orientation describes . . . attractions to . . . a combination of the two [sexes] (intersex)": If the APA or some such says that, that's politically interesting. If they didn't say that, I'd be cautious about putting it in, because if it has weaker sourcing for being part of a definition of sexual orientation then some editor will likely be back to discuss whether zoosexuality etc. are adequately sourced with less, too. But if intersex should be in that context, go ahead.

Whether the object (so to speak) of sexual orientation is gender or sex: I'm fine with whichever the sourcing says, although I wonder whether APA et al. distinguish sex and gender with much clarity and not use them sometimes interchangeably. Without looking it up, my guess is, whichever term they use, they mean sex, because the usual question is whether the attraction is to a man or a woman and not whether it's to a masculine or feminine person. But if they say gender and mean sex, that relationship between the terms in the source probably has to be cited to avoid an issue of synthesis. It may be possible to cite a passage indirectly showing that they mean 'sex' when they say gender, although possibly indirectly leaving the interpretation to readers becomes synthesis.

I had thought sexology was a specialty in psychology, but I haven't looked it up; even if it is, their practitioners can be mentioned as among the organized people who offer the definition, if true. I probably agree that psychologists are not popularly thought of as scientists since most people think of clinical psychologists. Another term might be organized scientists in psychology, sexology, and ___ (fill in the blank) or organized scholars in ___.

I'm fine with your judgments for this article. You're likely reading more than I am on the subjects. Go ahead and do what you find best.

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your feelings about the heading. I asked instead of reverting you, per WP:TALK. You are the one who created the heading, and, if the one who created it objects to the change and reverts, that person should not be reverted in turn. Not unless the heading violates WP:TALK or some other guideline/policy.

I wouldn't say that the term "third gender" is a slight against gays/lesbians. If you read the Third Gender article, it's about people who don't identify as men or women or cannot simply be identified as men or women. For example, one part of the lead currently says, "The term has been used to describe hijras of India, Bangladesh and Pakistan who have gained legal identity, Fa'afafine of Polynesia, and Sworn virgins of the Balkans, among others, and is also used by many of such groups and individuals to describe themselves." That's referenced. And of course the term has also been referred to as "third sex" (also made clear in the lead). I would say the APA does accept that there is a third gender. As pointed out above, they use "other sex" once in describing heterosexuality. So maybe that is them acknowledging a third gender or more than two genders, in the same way you were by suggesting we use the wording "the other sex." From what I have read, the APA recognizes more than two genders. But recognizing more than two sexes is different, since, for the reasons I mentioned before, biology has not presented us with a third sex. Not unless we identify intersex people as "a third sex" (like some do). But, typically, the term "third sex" is a synonym for "third gender." I'm one of the people who doesn't like to conflate the terms sex and gender. To me, they are two different things...even though they typically overlap and are often used interchangeably.

You're right about not using "intersex." I only suggested it to tackle your "opposite sex" concerns. All definitions of sexual orientation by reputable sources say "men and women" or "males and females." It appeared that you were worried about only presenting two sex categories. I pointed out that there are only two (unless we list "intersex" as a third sex category), but that more than two gender categories have been acknowledged by researchers. I want to point out, though, that the sexual orientation categories cover attraction to intersex individuals either way. Most intersex individuals identify as either male or female, and they generally look like one sex or the other (disregarding incongruent genitalia or some other incongruent aspect, such as breasts). Most people are identified as male or female just by looking at their faces and/or the forms of their bodies, which is what sexual orientation is about...in addition to an emotional/romantic connection. And with intersex people, a person may not even find out until later that the individual is intersex. It's the same with transgender people. So a person sexually attracted to an intersex person is still either heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual. We can also think in legal terms. In legal terms, people are either male or female. I'm not aware of any documentation/form that lists "other." Sure, there are people who can appear androgynous, but sexual orientation is first and foremost about physical attraction to a specific sex or both. Until there is a term used by researchers to describe a sexual orientation (not a paraphilia, but a sexual orientation) about attraction to people who look to be of both sexes, we should not make it seem that there is. The term pansexuality (which is usually subsumed under bisexuality, as you know) is the closest term for that. So I'll just go with "opposite sex, same sex, both, or neither." Excluding "males, females" helps because not only does it not specify "heterosexuality, homosexuality" in the way that "opposite sex, same sex" does, but it takes care of those who reject the two-sex category since it doesn't state two sexes as explicitly. We can also include the wording "and the genders that accompany them," like I suggested above.

I understand what you're saying about the APA meaning "sex" or "gender." From what I have read, they include both, like most researchers do, when defining sexual orientation, since sexual orientation does include both. They actually say "men, women" instead of "males, females" in their first line (from the source shown in the article), when "men, women" are technically gender categories and "males, females" are technically sex categories. But they likely do that to narrow sexual orientation down to a human domain. Saying "males, females" can apply to any non-human animal. Sure, they may also at times mean "sex" when they say "gender" or vice-versa, but we can't really know that...since these terms are used interchangeably so often.

Earlier, I meant to say that another reason I object to the term "psychologists" in this case is because, like you stated, most people think of clinical psychologists when they hear the term (at least in my experience). Sexology is a part of psychology, yes, which is why I said "All of this falls under the scope of "psychological.", but I prefer the term "researchers" for the reasons I mentioned. Can't say I like "scholars" any better. Maybe it's just me, but I generally think of writers when I hear/see the term.

Anyway, I'll go ahead and apply what we have agreed on to the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I changed it to this. I left out "most" from the "organized researchers" line because someone might ask for a citation for "most" and there are not any other terms (at least not ones as recognized as these) that are used by researchers to designate sexual orientation. Pansexuality, like I've already made clear, is not viewed as distinct from bisexuality by researchers (typically-speaking). Flyer22 (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot about androphilia and gynephilia, which have a section in this article and are indeed two more sexual orientation terms used by researchers. The terms are not as widely used by researchers or the general public as the previous four, however (obviously), and are synonyms for the heterosexual and homosexual orientations but are instead used to "identify a subject's object of attraction without attributing a sex assignment or gender identity to the subject." Basically, the terms "can avoid confusion and offense when describing people in non-western cultures, as well as when describing intersex and transgender people." I have to state, though, that I have known some transgender people to find these terms offensive, because they say that if they identify as one gender and have an exclusive sexual preference for the opposite or same gender, they should be identified as heterosexual or homosexual just like any other heterosexual or homosexual person. Not have special categories that some researchers, like Anil Aggrawal, feel more accurately describes their sexual orientation. The article on the terms notes this criticism as well. I'm going to go ahead and add a bit of that criticism to this article, since all that is there now is support for the terms. Flyer22 (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with your latest editing. I did only a minor correction. It's good work.

I wasn't worried about presenting only two categories of sex (as in the body, not the activity). I imagine that if sexual orientation was defined with reference to a third sex or intersex the classification would get more complicated or more definitions would be needed and that APA and kindred have not gotten to that stage yet. The existing classification (two sexes and four orientations) is probably good enough. Anything more complicated probably requires a proposal to APA or kindred, and Wikipedia then is limited to reporting such proposals, assuming the proposals are themselves sourced. I assume we don't want to report something as a sexual orientation if the only source for it is, say, the opinion of a couple of clinicians.

I'm a little surprised that men/women is for gender while male/female is for sex: I thought those were to differentiate for adulthood vs. lifelong but that both were for sex (as in sex/gender distinction#Sex), while masculine/feminine is for gender although commonly the men/women and male/female terminologies are used for gender anyway.

An obscure point: I think one nation now allows a third choice for sex on passports (I forgot what, maybe "unspecified" or "unknown" or some such). A BBC story covered it the other day; I think the nation was Australia, but I'm not sure. Unfortunately, I think the BBC website is not always good for searching for broadcast stories, but if they covered it probably some other media did, too.

Okay on some people using third gender terminology for themselves. I recalled some cultures using the term for members, whence my suspicion. Self-identification is a different matter, although it may not obviate the possibility of slighting by others.

I'm not worried about defining sexual orientation in a way that offends many people if that's the only definition that's adequately sourced. The complaints should go to the definers. If we copy correctly or paraphrase with proper authority, the complaints don't belong with Wikipedia. Exception: reporting sourced complaints as criticisms of the sexual orientation taxonomy.

Good point on scholar sounding like 'writer'; I hadn't thought of that. It covers historians, for example, which 'scientist' generally doesn't. But the lede looks good and I think the choice you made is good.

Ethologists have found sexualities among animals but I don't know if they've found sexual orientations. In other words, if a couple of sheep are homosexual (and some are known to be), do other sheep think the first two need to be cured or shunned? or do they interact with them as they do with other sheep (or even treat them as leading sheep)? If the tendency is to shun or attack, to sheep homosexuality among sheep is not a sexual orientation. I think the distinction can be tested for, but maybe that hasn't been.

By the way, I sometimes use Wikipedia as a starting point for research but much less often as a finishing point, so I don't often look up articles on things I'm thinking about. Thanks for noting what they say.

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC) (Corrected by adding a word: 16:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC))

By saying "men, women" are technically gender categories and "males, females" are technically sex categories, I was speaking of how the World Health Organization source "What do we mean by 'sex' and 'gender'?" defines the terms, for example. It says: "Male" and "female" are sex categories, while "masculine" and "feminine" are gender categories. Sure, it doesn't say "men" and "women" are gender categories, but it is clear from just looking at the Man and Woman articles that society defines what a man or a woman is. It's not just about the biological, like the terms "male" and "female" are. "Male" and "female" can apply to any non-human animal, while "man" and "woman" only apply to human beings and the social aspects that come along with them being deemed man or woman. The fact that they are gender categories is why a third gender can be proposed, but an actual third sex is another matter (for the reason gone over above). That said, the WHO definition of gender is strict and I'm aware that it is acceptable to conflate "sex" and "gender." As the Gender article states, ...the meaning of gender has expanded to include "sex" or even to replace the latter word. And remember, I said, "I'm one of the people who doesn't like to conflate the terms sex and gender. To me, they are two different things...even though they typically overlap and are often used interchangeably." I'm only speaking of the terms "sex" and "gender" being conflated, though. I'm okay with calling a "man" a "male" or vice-versa when in reference to a human male. However, though these two things are usually congruent for an individual, there are cases when they are not; aka human males who do not "feel like men" -- the scope of transgender and intersex topics. Thinking this way clearly shows the difference between biological sex and gender/gender identity. I'm not a feminist, but apparently...a lot of feminists like distinguishing the terms "sex" and "gender" as well. This is noted in the Gender article. I'm not sure what you mean about the terms being used to "differentiate for adulthood vs. lifelong." The article you linked to -- Sex and gender distinction -- shows the same distinction I'm speaking of.

Thanks for alerting me to the fact that one nation now allows a third choice for sex on passports. That's interesting. The third option must be "unspecified" or "unknown," as you stated, or "other" (as I alluded to when pondering it). But that is a passport. I'm wondering about legally being recognized as something other than male or female, legally as in on a birth certificate. Anyway, BBC News is a reliable source and is usually a good source to use.

Understood about all the other things. I really do appreciate your help; I always do. Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What I meant by adult vs. lifelong: One born female or male does not become a woman or man, respectively, until adulthood. How adulthood is defined varies by context; e.g., by legal age of consent or by normal reproductive ability onset.

The passport story is probably on a wire service or in Australian media.

Probably any passport (assuming not forged etc. and assuming the issuing nation is a recognized nation) is a legal representation of the facts it states, a representation by the government issuing it, since it serves as a government-to-government document that is probably governed by treaty. It's probably as legally forceful (e.g., useable as evidence) as a birth certificate.

Best wishes. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for clarifying. Going back to the subsection thing, another reason I made this discussion a subsection is that if (or rather "when") the topic comes up again...I like to be able to link to one past discussion instead of two or more. And these past discussions are about the same thing -- defining the lead, especially with regard to the terms that researchers usually use. But, again, if you'd rather this section stay separate, I can live with that.

The man/woman thing... Well, it's not much different than the fact that boy/girl are also gender categories.

The passport thing... Hmm... I'm still skeptical as to whether or not a person is legally recognized as something other than male or female, other than on a passport. But, yeah. Flyer22 (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I added to the other topic a cross-reference to this topic for readers' and editors' benefit, which should also work after archiving.

Whether Australia (or whichever nation) recognizes other choices domestically is generally up to its domestic laws, so that can vary by nation. I doubt U.S. law is going to change in the next couple of years, but then again I wouldn't have expected any nation to do it yet.

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I changed "By the convention of organized researchers, these attractions are subsumed under heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality." to "These attractions are generally subsumed under heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality." because the latter is accurate without having to mention "researchers," and it keeps people from adding "some," "most" or "U.S." or "Western" researchers (as though the terms are only used by the U.S./West). Adding the word "generally" is also a compromise. Because the original objection was making it seem as though these are the only terms used for these attractions. "Generally" implies that there are more, but that the aforementioned ones are the usual terms. Flyer22 (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Disorders of sexual preference

Since sexual preference redirects to this article, and the term is shown as strictly synonymous with the subject of the article (MOS:TEXT) these disorders should be included. See ICD-10 bluebook

F65 Disorders of sexual preference

• F65.0 Fetishism
• F65.1 Fetishistic transvestism
• F65.2 Exhibitionism
• F65.3 Voyeurism
• F65.4 Paedophilia
• F65.5 Sadomasochism

Or maybe the article should be split. There's a lot of material here that I personally would not expect to find in an article with this title, like that large section on "Measuring sexual orientation". What do all these subsections have to do with "measuring"? Has any population been "measured" by anything other than surveys? DS Belgium (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Um…good luck getting traction for those to be considered "disorders". —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed some bias in the RS, the material included, the points of view expressed. I don't have a problem discussing the relative merits of all sources used in the article. DS Belgium (talk) 11:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

As I stated above, "Sexual preference" is not necessarily the same thing as "sexual orientation"; this is addressed in the lead: A person who identifies as bisexual, for example, may sexually prefer one sex over the other. Meaning..."bisexuality" is the sexual orientation. "Men or women" is the sexual preference. Yes, "sexual orientation" and "sexual preference" usually mean the same thing (that's why Sexual preference redirects here), but my point is that they don't always. No researcher doubts that pedophilia is a sexual preference. After all, the correct description for it is "sexual preference for prepubescent children." Not simply "sexual attraction to prepubescent children." But most researchers do not call it "a sexual orientation." Not even the ICD-10. And researchers who believe it to be a legitimate sexual orientation are in the minority. This is what we call WP:FRINGE (already linked above).

All that said, if you want pedophilia mentioned specifically as "a disorder of sexual preference" and a brief mention about how some researchers have compared it to (or claimed it to be) a sexual orientation, I don't mind that being in this article. As long as it is not included in the lead or given prominence. If others object, however, then you'll have to duel that out with them.

Not sure about including the others on your list. But it is better to have a section about disorders of sexual preference, then for pedophilia to be mentioned by its lonesome at some random part in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Citation problems

Listing of citation problems, like "improper synthesis?", "further explanation needed", etc...

• Misrepresenting sources

• The term sexual preference largely overlaps with sexual orientation, but is distinguished in psychological research.[3] Source: Sexual orientation is a preferred term for psychological writing over "sexual preference". The source calls the term "preference" problematic, it does not say it has a different meaning, only that it may be perceived as implying choice.

• In-text attributions missing. Per WP:INTEXT, "in-text attribution should be used with direct speech (a source's words between quotation marks); indirect speech (a source's words without quotation marks); and close paraphrasing.".

Example:

• Article: Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the opposite sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex. It is usually discussed in terms of heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality [1]
• Source: Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex. However, sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of the other sex), gay/lesbian (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of one's own sex), and bisexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to both men and women).

In this case, the APA should be mentioned in the text.

• reevaluation of Kinsey data. Source added, clarified. DS Belgium (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Genetic factors for sexual orientation

That section is about genetic factors for Sexual orientation in general. What roles do genes play in the development of sexual orientation?

There's a reason why the original section (before the new user's added material) was:

Genes may be related to the development of sexual orientation. At one time, studies of twins appeared to point to a major genetic component, but problems in experimental design of the available studies have made their interpretation difficult, and one recent study appears to exclude genes as a major factor.

It encompasses all sexual orientations since this article is about Sexual orientations in general. This section isn't about genetic factors for one specific sexual orientation (that's why materials on genes and homosexuality weren't included in the section in the first place), so the recently added materials would be more relevant to the Homosexuality article or Biology and sexual orientation article.

This problem is sort of similar to this one.

I'll leave this for now because of the 3rr, but hopefully someone else can give some insight on the issue instead of reverting and unhelpfully stating the that the "material is clearly relevant as a significant case of orientation". Someone963852 (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Could someone clarify something? What's the relevance of this information:

There have been many studies conducted in order to search for a "gay gene". In Dean Hamer's study, his team found that 33 of the 40 pairs of gay brothers that were studied, had the same distinctive marker near the end of their X chromosome. However, he cautioned that a gene like this would unlikely be the cause of homosexuality.

If he said that a gene like that would be unlikely to be the cause of homosexuality, then what is the significance of the data? It seems confusing to readers. Moreover, this is 17 years old. There is surely more recent research which provides more useful information than this. Am I wrong? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No, you're not wrong. Just because something is cited doesn't mean it should automatically belong in the article.

I'm removing the recently added material from the new user. Please do not revert unless you provide a solid and legitimate reason explaining why it should stay. Someone963852 (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why TheSoundAndTheFury is asking "What's the relevance of this information?" If it were not relevant, it would not fit in the Homosexuality article. Which it does. TheSoundAndTheFury's argument appears to be more that we shouldn't report this information at all, not just that we shouldn't report it in this article. It being an old study means nothing. Plenty of studies, such as those done by Alfred Kinsey or Masters and Johnson are old studies...but we report them anyway. Some of those studies are still held up as valid proof of things in today's world. If Hamer was the first to look for a gay gene, his study is even more relevant to that specific topic. I don't care if this information is included in this article or not. I just wanted to offer my thoughts on it. 112.216.29.245 (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"What's the relevance of this information?" If it were not relevant, it would not fit in the Homosexuality article. Which it does.

The problem is, this isn't the "Homosexuality" article. This is the "Sexual orientation" article. Someone963852 (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone963852, did you not read what I stated? I am obviously quite aware of that fact. I said, "TheSoundAndTheFury's argument appears to be more that we shouldn't report this information at all, not just that we shouldn't report it in this article." and that "I don't care if this information is included in this article or not." But since I'm here again, I'll say that, no, I don't see a problem including it in this article. Do I care if you do or not? Also no. 112.216.29.245 (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"TheSoundAndTheFury's argument appears to be more that we shouldn't report this information at all, not just that we shouldn't report it in this article.

Really? I interpreted TheSoundAndTheFury's statement the other way around. Someone963852 (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Origins of concept

Hi, a section on the origins of the concept of 'orientation' is needed if this is to be an up-to-scratch article. As any latin scholar will tell you, the Ancient Romans, didn't have the concept of 'orientation'. It didn't 'come in to existence' until the 18th century. Tjpob (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Asexuality as a sexual orientation, with regard to WP:MEDRS and other things

Hey, everyone. We really need outside opinions about whether or not to list asexuality as a sexual orientation in the Sexual orientation article and Template:Sexual orientation, as well as how to go about mentioning that it is considered a sexual orientation by some researchers (though still not by the general medical community).

And I hate to beg, but please do help out. The discussion is being had at Template talk:Sexual orientation#Is there evidence that Asexuality is a sexual orientation? Flyer22 (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I just get through debating asexuality with an ignorant editor at Talk:Asexuality, and then I click on "Sexual orientation" to see another ignorant editor changing things.[1] I read the debate, and it was decided that we should include asexuality as a sexual orientation. So why does MathewTownsend show up weeks after the debate ended to go against that decision? He claims to have no personal opinion on the subject, but clearly he does. For example, he added the word "some" (which is a Wikipedia:Weasel word) to a line that already has established consensus (see the first section above). The conclusion from that section is that it's not "some" researchers who list these attractions under heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality. All do, except the few who use androphilia and gynephilia. Or terms like men who have sex with men or women who have sex with women, which are more about behaviors. For the APA definition, MathewTownsend then proceeds to add "(which includes only lesbian, gay, or bisexual and not asexuality)." Is that needed, like at all? Isn't it awfully redundant to talk about asexuality's status as a sexual orientation that early on, when this is approached in the third paragraph? MathewTownsend also adds "a "lack of sexual attraction" and backs it to one source. This is not consensus editing. Consensus agreed with putting asexuality as a sexual orientation in the intro of the article, not with calling it a lack of sexual attraction. How do we even know that MathewTownsend has read this source? It didn't seem like he read it when he was debating including asexuality.

I don't often edit Wikipedia or comment in any of its discussions, but I have been forced to end my recent silence by ignorant editors like this. 50.78.12.41 (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I took care of the "some" issue, as seen in the above discussion you mentioned. I agree that the issue about asexuality being a sexual orientation should only be tackled at one point in the lead, and the best place for that is the third paragraph which details heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality being the usual sexual orientation categories and how people may not use any category. As for a "lack of sexual attraction," well, the fact that asexuality is considered a sexual orientation was not removed from the lead and the "lack of sexual attraction" is clarifying what asexuality is. But I don't feel that we need to do that in the lead, just like we don't for the other sexual orientations there. That's what the links are for. And if it is felt that we should define the terms, they can be defined in the "Sexual orientation distinguished from sexual identity and behavior" or "Sexual orientations included" sections. In fact, asexuality is already defined in the latter of the two. Flyer22 (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. 50.78.12.41 (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)