Talk:Sexual orientation

Pedophilia

The Harvard Medical School’s Harvard Mental Health Letter states “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.” It defines Pedophilia as “the sexual attraction to children who have not yet reached puberty.”

Is there any appropriate place to include this information in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.95.182.78 (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a reason that you were reverted here and here, and it's the reason that pedophilia has been kept from being mentioned as a sexual orientation in this article for years: WP:Fringe. Stating that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, at least regarding the usual/authoritative way that sexual orientation is defined (which is by sexual and/or romantic attraction to males and/or females, men and/or women, not whether or not someone is a child, adolescent or adult),[1][2] is WP:Fringe. Calling it a sexual orientation, especially in the WP:Lead, is WP:Undue weight. Some people (including a minority of researchers) use the term sexual orientation loosely (including with regard to pedophilia), but it is not at all scientific consensus to call pedophilia a sexual orientation. Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I also found the claim that Pedophilia is a sexual orientation in the medical testimony given to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights of CANADA’s 40th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION, Monday, February 14, 2011. I have yet to find any medical reference where it is claimed it is not a sexual orientation. Do you know of any? 173.95.182.78 (talk) 03:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not how WP:Fringe and WP:Undue work. Read that guideline and that policy. The vast majority of sources with regard to sexual orientation mention nothing of pedophilia as a sexual orientation; that is the point. That is why there is barely a debate among scholars with regard to pedophilia being a sexual orientation and thus is why there is barely a need among scholars to state that it is not one. Flyer22 (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

So there are multiple quotations from independent sources for the view you call WP:Fringe and no quotations or independent sources for the view you call not WP:Fringe? 173.95.182.78 (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to read WP:Fringe and WP:Undue or not? Do I need to start citing parts of that guideline and parts of that policy for you to understand why it's not just my view that calling pedophilia a sexual orientation is WP:Fringe? Again, the vast majority of sources, WP:Primary and WP:Secondary, and whatever other type of source, define sexual orientation as sexual and/or romantic attraction to males and/or females, men and/or women...with no mention of pedophilia. Most of the time, when researchers refer to pedophilia as a sexual orientation, they do not mean literally (like I stated, being loose with the term) and/or are usually comparing it to sexual orientation...as to state that it is like one (not that it is one). The significant minority calling pedophilia a sexual orientation, a minority that is mostly made up of pedophiles and pedophile supporters, do not even deserve a mention in this article...per WP:Fringe and WP:Undue.

I'll cease replying to you now so that someone else gets a chance to respond to you first. Flyer22 (talk) 03:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn’t get the impression that the two sources I found (Harvard Medical School, and the experts asked to testify to Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights) were “mostly made up of pedophiles and pedophile supporters”. They seemed to want to stop child abuse from what I read, and thought that by recognizing pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change, more effective treatment would be establish. I believe they are recommending that enabling pedophiles to resist acting on sexual urges is more effective at preventing child abuse than trying to change a pedophile's sexual orientation towards children.

I would not want to see any sort of pro-NAMBLA rhetoric included in the article. If greater understanding of the sexual orientation of pedophiles can help prevent child abuse, then that information might be useful to include. 173.95.182.78 (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Not here. The overwhelming majority of relaible sources on sexual orientation do not include pedophila in the concept. That sporadic reliable sources that do so don't carry much WP:WEIGHT, and need not be mentioned at all per WP:FRINGE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I would certainly accept that the Harvard Medical School view was WP:FRINGE if I could find medical or scientific references to that effect. So far, I can only find political sorts of arguments. Can you point me to any medical or scientific reference where it is claimed Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation? 173.95.182.78 (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether pedophilia is a sexual orientation, paraphilia, perversion, or the result of demonic possession, it simply isn't sufficiently common to warrant any discussion in the lead of this article. Period. Now, as for whether it can be described as an "orientation" and not as a "paraphilia" later in the article, Harvard Medical School is a WP:RS but is taking a position contradictory to most RS on the topic. We don't need the other RS to explicitly say that it isn't an orientation, since not saying that it is an orientation is sufficiently descriptive of their position on the matter. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree it should not be in the lead (I just figured my WP:BOLD would last about 10 seconds no matter where I put it), I think it belongs towards the end. The statistics I am reading do not make it look much rarer than asexuality, which is in the article. In addition to the two WP:RS I mentioned above, I am now reading Archives of Sexual Behavior, February 2012, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 231-236, “Is Pedophilia a Sexual Orientation?” By Michael C. Seto. He argues that pedophilia can be understood as a sexual orientation with regard to age, just as heterosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality can be understood as sexual orientations with regard to gender. He looks at the issue on the bases of age of onset, correlations with sexual and romantic behavior, and stability over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.95.182.78 (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The Michael C. Seto bit is hardly any different than what I told you above: "Most of the time, when researchers refer to pedophilia as a sexual orientation, they do not mean literally (like I stated, being loose with the term) and/or are usually comparing it to sexual orientation...as to state that it is like one (not that it is one)." That is why the sexual orientation aspect is mentioned in the Pedophilia article, but pedophilia is not called a sexual orientation in that article; it is also WP:Due weight to mention that aspect in the Pedophilia article without asserting that it is a sexual orientation in that article. And asexuality has substantially more support as a sexual orientation than pedophilia has; that is why it is mentioned in this article and pedophilia is not, and is why it is currently included on the template for sexual orientation (not to mention that there has been WP:Consensus to keep it listed on the sexual orientation template, without the WP:Consensus having yet changed on that matter). Also take note that most adult asexual people experience romantic attraction toward other adults (as in men, women or both), and that romantic attraction is a defining aspect of sexual orientation in many or most sources with regard to sexual orientation (in fact, it's because of this that some asexual people identify as heterosexual, gay, lesbian or bisexual...relating to the romantic aspects of those sexual orientations/sexual identities). Now I am just about done, or am done, discussing this topic with you because you are not getting the point and this discussion is going in circles. Flyer22 (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I can’t find any WP:RS to support what you are saying, and you have not provided any despite the fact I have ask repeatedly. It appears to me it is just new science that may hold a key to more effective treatments in preventing child abuse. It is politically inconvenient new science. But removing from view all new science regarding sexual orientation that is not politically convenient moves sexual orientation into a pseudoscience realm. It’s not even all that politically inconvenient, it just means people in the future may have to be more specific when they are only speaking with regard to gender sexual orientation and not sexual orientation as a whole. 173.95.182.78 (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Most of what I stated above is supported by various reliable sources, so be specific. What you mean is that you want a reliable source stating that pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. Well, you have already gotten replies about that with regard to what relevance it has in support of your addition/proposal. And, surely, in the few reliable sources discussing pedophilia as a sexual orientation, you can find one researcher who disagrees with calling it one; but again, that is not the point. The WP:BURDEN is not on us to prove that pedophilia is not a sexual orientation (the significant majority of sources, reliable and non-reliable, show that it's hardly ever considered a sexual orientation anyway); it is on you to prove that it is not WP:Fringe and WP:Undue weight to call it a sexual orientation and therefore not WP:Fringe and WP:Undue weight to include it in this article. And you have not proven that. I'm now done replying to you about this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and researchers speculating and/or arguing about something does not necessarily equal science. Researchers aren't even clear on the science behind sexual orientation, as this article clearly notes. Flyer22 (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there anyone who can identify any WP:RS that states pedophilia is not a sexual orientation? I would be interested to hear about one if there is one. Certainly traditionally it has been research from a gender point of view, but is it impossible to believe that science could discover that other factors like age could be involved? 173.95.182.78 (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

No source is required to explicitly state pedophilia is not a sexual orientation because the very term "sexual orientation" is a nothing more than a label with several definitions, some being more authoritative and in far more common use than others. It is simply that those authoritative, more commonly used definitions, due to their criteria, would not apply to pedophilia. This article currently demonstrates this in spades. Two or three letters or editorial journal articles that choose a non-standard definition do not invalidate the multiple other sources that use definitions that would exclude pedophilia.

Key to this matter, whether you want to admit it or not, is the motive for including pedophilia under this definition in this Wikipedia article. It's read by laypeople, so the only real motive is social agenda. That is, to exploit the common association of "sexual orientation" with civil rights matters and thereby ride the coattails of the LGBT community. Groups have been trying to do that for decades.Legitimus (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If the US and state governments accepted your view that sexual orientation is “nothing more than a label” with no scientific basis, it would set LGBT rights back decades. The whole marriage equality argument is predicated on the idea that sexual orientation is a scientific fact, and not a lifestyle choice.

I can’t believe anyone really thinks pedophiles are going to get civil right protections as result of the above medical discussion being included in the article. Laws, like the federal hate crimes law, are already written very carefully to state explicitly that civil rights only apply to gender sexual orientation and not sexual orientation as a whole. I think the motivation for including this information would be to promote effective treatment programs for pedophiles, and to provide accurate information about the current state of scientific investigation into sexual orientation, including new developments. 173.95.182.78 (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

To comment on what Legitimus stated, it's obvious to me that he was not stating that sexual orientation is nothing more than a label; he was stating that the term sexual orientation is nothing more than a label, which is hardly any different than what the American Psychological Association states, and is why he used the word term. The IP has also clearly twisted Legitimus's words with regard to the rest as well. Flyer22 (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Other than communicating you are full of hate, I really don’t get what you are trying to say. If you are not concerned about pedophiles getting civil rights (which I agree no one wants) what does “exploit the common association of "sexual orientation" with civil rights matters and thereby ride the coattails of the LGBT community” mean? 173.95.182.78 (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that all people (should) have civil rights, no matter what their sexual preference. Certainly paedophiles should not be discriminated against just because they are attracted to children. I SHOULD POINT OUT that I am using the term paedophilia to refer to people who are attracted to children, NOT to people who have abused children (although I'm sure most of those people would be classed as paedophile too). There was a big debate on this a while back on one of the pages (maybe the paedophilia one, cant remember), and I think it ended with them saying paedophile could refer to both people who were attracted to children, and those who had followed through with these attractions. I personally think that the word, paedophile, just like any other -phile, just means attracted to the thing, in this case, paedo- (child). You can be a paedophile and not act out your desires. Anyway, back on topic, Legitimus is clearly saying that he is talking about the word sexual orientation, rather than that which it describes. He has repeatedly pointed out that what you are asserting is, at the moment, WP:FRINGE, and until you substantiate it with multiple reliable sources, it is a no go. You keep asking him to provide sources, seemingly not understanding that the burden of proof is upon you, not him, as you are trying to "go against" an established school of thought. The fact that reliable sources dont mention paedophilia while talking about sexual orientation is proof of this. If you want sources for that in particular, just look at the bottom of the article. 152.78.249.33 (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, new IP, you are correct that pedophilia more accurately refers to sexual attraction to children (a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, to be more precise). You are also obviously correct that child sexual abuse is a separate matter. Though it is common for pedophiles to sexually abuse children, not all pedophiles do. And not all child sexual abusers are pedophiles (especially since child sexual abuse, in addition to sexual abuse of prepubescents, covers sexual activity with underage pubescents and underage postpubescents as well). I was the one repeatedly pointing out WP:FRINGE to the aforementioned IP. But, as you can see, that and some other things didn't sink in far enough for him or her. Flyer22 (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant flyer22. 152.78.249.33 (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Paedophilia isn't (and never will be) a sexual orientation. It's a categorical impossibility. Children aren't a sex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeBonolo (talk • contribs) 02:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Societal construct

This article doesn't seem to confront the likely possibility that 'sexual orientation' is a cultural construct and that there is no reason to see sexual attraction as intrinsically directed towards any groups on any basis, and that it is entirely possible for sexual attraction to be something one feels towards individuals on an individual basis. Even the section 'Anthropology, history, and sexology' only entertains the possibility that sexual orientation may be based on 'other categories'. What about no categorization? This would be evidenced by the fact that in a history of western culture the idea of sexual orientation is something that has only appeared very recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.148.43 (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a section whose very title is "Sexual constructionism and Western societies".--Auró (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Definition of asexuality in introduction

The introduction defines asexuality as "the lack of romantic or sexual attraction to others". Could someone with editing powers on this article remove the romantic part to just leave "the lack of sexual attraction to others"? The sources in the introduction and on Wikipedia's page on asexuality concur that asexual individuals vary on the ability/inclination to form romantic attachments, i.e. there are asexual individuals who experience romantic attraction. MagpieMe (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The word lack does not have to mean absence. And notice that the word or is used, meaning that it (the attraction) may be one or the other, if not both. Therefore, the description is accurate. Flyer22 (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

On a point of sheer pedantry, the definition of "lack" is "deficiency or need (of something desirable or necessary); an absence, want".

Back on topic, however, I respectfully disagree. The definition is inaccurate because using the word "or" means that a person who does experience sexual attraction but does not experience romantic attraction can be called asexual, which is not true. The definition currently doesn't match the sources: they concur that there are competing definitions of asexuality, but every definition circles around sexual attraction. Romantic attraction is not included in any of the definitions in the sources. The asexuality page goes into more detail (using the same sources) if you want more info. MagpieMe (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

MagpieMe, Wikis are not WP:Reliable sources. This, this, this and this dictionary source show that lack does not necessarily mean absence; it is also why I chose to use both words (lack and absence) in the WP:Lead of the Asexuality article. Note that while I do not own the Asexuality article, I am the main editor of it, and propelled it to WP:Good article status. So I am well aware of the topic of asexuality and what that Wikipedia article states about it. The lead of that article summarizes that article well, subtly showing that there is not even complete agreement that asexuality means absolutely no sexual attraction. With regard to sourcing, we go by the WP:Verifiability policy at this site. And with regard to the word lack, researchers generally define asexuality as "individuals with low or absent sexual desire or attractions, low or absent sexual behaviors, exclusively romantic non-sexual partnerships, or a combination of both absent sexual desires and behaviors"; this is made clear in the Romantic relationships and identity section of that article, a section that clearly shows that some people with low sexual desire or low sexual attraction identify as asexual.

You are incorrect when you state that "[r]omantic attraction is not included in any of the definitions in the sources," as shown by this source, the first source used in the lead of the Sexual orientation article for the asexual bit and which notes how researchers and asexual-identified people define the term, and this scholarly book source (also in the lead and which addresses different definitions of asexuality among researchers and those who identify as asexual). If romantic aspects were not a part of defining asexuality in WP:Reliable sources, or some characteristic of it, the romantic factor would not be mentioned in the Asexuality article...unless, because a WP:Reliable source mentions it, it was to state that asexual people do not experience romantic attraction. So, yes, keeping all of what I just stated in mind, a person who does experience sexual attraction but does not experience romantic attraction can be asexual; this is because a person with low sexual attraction may identify, and may be identified by researchers, as asexual because he or she does not have the desire to engage in romantic or sexual activity/relationships. Furthermore, romantic attraction is usually tied up with sexual attraction, and is what usually distinguishes platonic love from romantic love; but for some people, such as some asexual people, they state that romantic attraction and sexual attraction are distinguished (separate) for them.

All that stated, I went ahead and granted your request...for better consistency with the lead of the Asexuality article and because (and I've noted this on Wikipedia before) it seems that the vast majority of asexual people experience romantic attraction. On a side note: You are not completely new to editing Wikipedia, are you? I notice that you have signed your username twice now, something that WP:Newbies usually have to be told to do (despite the fact that, whenever they are typing up a comment in the Wikipedia editing space, there is a message above it informing them to sign their username), and you have used WP:Indent (properly at that, though you might have been following my lead...correctly deducing that you should indent one mark further after me). Flyer22 (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for making the amendment. I started this topic because I felt the definition given was incorrect in itself, but also because I had read the asexuality article and saw an inconsistency between the definition of asexuality given in the asexuality article and the definition given in this article. I did not know you were the lead editor of the asexuality article (obviously), but now that I do, I'd like to thank you and your fellow editors for doing such a good job with it.

Having read your response, I think I might not have explained what I meant clearly enough. I am not trying to say that romantic attraction has nothing to do with asexuality. I've been trying to say that the original wording defined three types of people as asexual:

1) Does not have a standard level of sexual attraction and does not have a standard level of romantic attraction;

2) Does not have a standard level of sexual attraction and does have a standard level of romantic attraction;

3) Does have a standard level of sexual attraction and does not have a standard level of romantic attraction.

This is because "the lack of romantic or sexual attraction to others" allows for the presence of a standard level of sexual attraction or romantic attraction, so long as the other is absent.

I've re-read my comment about the sources and it wasn't clear, apologies. In both of them (and others), the only definitions of asexuality which include romantic attraction also specify a lack or significant reduction of sexual attraction/behaviour. I have not seen any definition of asexuality which includes "normal" sexual attraction. (Which doesn't mean a source along those lines doesn't exist, although it would be pretty weird! Regardless, if you know of one I'd be grateful if you'd point me in its direction.) None of the definitions in the sources defined person 3 as asexual, but the original definition here did, which is why I said that the sources did not support the definition. I didn't make my point well, but I hope it's clear now.

On the side note of me not being new to Wikipedia, no I am not, although this is the first time I've had a user account. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that? I haven't bothered with a user account before because I've tended to use Wikipedia very infrequently, if at all, but I made one recently because I've been on the site more often. While we're on this topic, though, could you please bear in mind Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers? I was honestly quite taken aback and a little upset by the tone of your response. If I was completely new to Wikipedia, it's quite likely that I would have abandoned my account and probably felt scared to go onto Wikipedia at all for a while. That was my initial reaction anyway, despite being a little more experienced that your average new-account-holder. I had to struggle with myself to get past it. I don't think any of that was your intention, but you'll never know it happened if I don't say something, which is why I've mentioned it here. MagpieMe (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome for the alteration. Yes, I know that you were not stating that romantic attraction has nothing to do with asexuality; after all, you began your commentary in this section by stating that romantic attraction can be a part of it. I don't feel that the lead was implying any of the three interpretation examples you gave above (well, not exactly in those ways), but thanks for explaining your point of view on that matter; I certainly didn't want any readers interpreting that text the wrong way, and I think I had at one time considered removing "romantic" from the asexual bit because it felt "off" to me because I know that people can sometimes take "or" the wrong way (which is one reason the and/or construct is popular, though Wikipedia has the WP:ANDOR guideline that advises us to generally stay away from that construct). As for assuming good faith and not being bitey, you felt that my question about whether you are completely new to editing Wikipedia was a violation of those guidelines? I don't see it that way, but I apologize for having upset you in that regard. It's just that I'm usually very good at spotting editors who are not new to editing Wikipedia, whether they are experienced IP address editors, an editor who has made a legitimate WP:Clean start or a WP:Sockpuppet; I have had many experiences with that last type, and so I am commonly suspicious of a new Wikipedia account that shows familiarity with editing Wikipedia, but I was not suggesting that you are that type. I was curious, and definitely did not mean to bite you. I think it's something that only experienced Wikipedia editors (whether having low, mid, or high Wikipedia experience) would get upset by. Flyer22 (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead

The first sentence of the article states that, "Sexual orientation is an enduring personal quality that inclines people to feel romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender." I find that sentence to be both poorly written and confusing. I suggest instead something like, "Sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of attraction—emotional, romantic, sexual, or some combination of these—to the opposite sex, the same sex, or both sexes." Looking through the revision history of the article, I found that older versions used similar wording. It seems to me that "pattern of attraction" is better than "personal quality that inclines people to feel romantic or sexual attraction", which sounds vague and mysterious. ImprovingWiki (talk) 04:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the lead has been extensively worked out more than once, so I am not enthusiastic about extensively debating it again. After much discussion, I got it to a point that it pleases everyone. By that, I mean including sex and gender, and by including pansexual and polysexual as alternative terms (note that pansexual and polysexual are not defined as sexual orientations by authoritative sources, such as the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association, on sexual orientation, but rather as sexual identities; so I've given them WP:Due weight as sexual identities in the lead, and they are mentioned lower in the article). We've included "sex" and "gender," because, like the hidden note I added in the lead about that states, these terms are not always the same thing; for example, "sex" may refer to "biological sex" (being male or female), while "gender" may refer to a person's gender identity of being a man or a woman; therefore, like the Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and Bisexuality articles, we have included both in the lead. Like before, people will complain if we only state "sex" and not "gender" as well. Articles such as Pansexuality, Polysexuality, Sex and gender distinction and Genderqueer are clear as to why they will complain. If people are confused by the lead stating "opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender," they can go to the Wikipedia articles to see what we mean.

As for how the article got changed from "enduring pattern of attraction that is" to "enduring personal quality" and "inclines people to feel," see Talk:Sexual orientation/Archive 3#Definition in lead section. Auró wanted to use "trait"; I and another editor objected. Auró and I finally settled on "enduring personal quality" and "inclines people to feel." However, I don't mind if we go back to using the "enduring pattern of attraction" wording. Flyer22 (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing to extensively debate anything. I was simply making a suggestion that others can agree with or not; I do think the current wording is poor. Thank you for pointing me to the relevant discussion in the talk page archives. ImprovingWiki (talk) 05:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding extensively debating, I meant that past experience concerning the first paragraph has led to extensive debating. I am exhausted on that matter, trying to please everyone regarding that. There comes a point where we have to realize that everyone is not going to be pleased with it. But whatever I can do to stop the same debates coming up again and again, such as debates regarding sex or gender, or bisexuality vs. pansexuality, I go for that...as long as going for it is reasonable. And for a debate on the sex or gender matter that led us to maintain both terms in the lead of the Homosexuality article, and then for me to take that approach to the leads of other aforementioned sexual orientation articles, see Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 21#Sex and gender. Flyer22 (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed some of the previous discussion. Auró claims to have found that definition in Simon LeVay's Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why. I must note that this book is not actually used as a source in the lead. I'm afraid I can't see any coherent rationale for the wording Auró favors. If there are no further objections, I will change the definition to, "Sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender." ImprovingWiki (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

As you can see in that discussion I had with Auró, we gave strong reasons why it's best not to go with a single author's definition of sexual orientation for the lead, unless that author is an authoritative scientific body. Flyer22 (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, but what is your point? Do you agree with the proposed change of wording or not? ImprovingWiki (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

My point regarding the "04:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)" post was to highlight why Simon LeVay is not used as a source for that first sentence. And, yes, I agree with your proposed change; remember, I stated above, "However, I don't mind if we go back to using the 'enduring pattern of attraction' wording." Flyer22 (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Both "personal trait", "enduring personal quality", include the personal dimension, "enduring pattern of attraction" does not. May be it is a too fine distinction, and it can be said that the personal dimension is included in the overall meaning. Nevertheless I favor to maintain "enduring personal quality", as being more explicit, and a result of previous consensus.--Auró (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not interested in previous consensus. I am interested only in using the best and most accurate wording. Your wording clearly is not preferable, and your reasoning is confused. What do you suppose "the personal dimension" even means? Is "the personal dimension" even a scientific expression, and is it supported by any of the article's sources? Obviously "enduring pattern of attraction" is "personal" inasmuch as it refers to people. Your wording simply adds unnecessary verbiage. Can you give any clearer reason for preferring your wording, Auró? If not, I will remove it, and change the lead as I proposed. ImprovingWiki (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should use material that is as scientific as possible, avoiding personal opinions. I found a definition in Gay, straight, and the reason why. The science of sexual orientation", Simon LeVay, Oxford University Press.2011. The book starts with a definition for sexual orientation, that is this:

"..it is the trait that predisposes us to experience sexual attraction to people of the same sex (homosexual gay, or lesbian), to persons of the other sex (heterosexual or straight), or both sexes (bisexual)". Flyer22 was opposed to use a single reference to build the definition of the article. There was a discussion and a consensus was met. We can repeat the process, no problem, but based on authoritative references.--Auró (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Auró, since the Sexual orientation article/talk page is on my WP:Watchlist, there is no need to ping me to it via WP:Echo. I pinged you to it because you don't edit Wikipedia as much as I do, and might overlook a new discussion on this talk page. Moving on to the topic at hand: In that aforementioned discussion, I and another editor, Someone963852, were against using a single author's (as in a single person's) definition of sexual orientation for the initial definition in the lead, not a single source, and I stated why I was against that and why it is best to go by what the authoritative sources on sexual orientation state when initially defining sexual orientation. Alternative definitions can come after that, and already do. Using a single author's definition of sexual orientation opens the door for people to state, "Oh, that's just that person's definition.", and to offer a different definition from a different author so that they can push their personal POV, including a POV that might be WP:Fringe. I and Someone963852 also stated that "trait" is already clear by the American Psychological Association; I stated the following: "The lead makes it clear that sexual orientation is a personal trait, even mentioning alternative sexual identity labels that a person may choose. And to once again go to the previous example I presented about this, the lead also states: According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation 'also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions'. So how does that not make it clear that sexual orientation is a personal trait/personal characteristic? If we were to state 'Sexual orientation is also a personal trait' right before that line is presented, I would not be able to help but consider it redundant, especially since, right after presenting the categories of sexual orientation in that same (first) paragraph, we state 'These categories are aspects of the more nuanced nature of sexual identity' and then name two alternative labels."

I didn't understand back then why you want "trait" to be added, and I still don't understand it. The reasons that I support ImprovingWiki having re-added "pattern of" is because the American Psychological Association, an authoritative source on sexual orientation, uses the word "enduring pattern of" for their definition of sexual orientation, and because sexual orientation is generally believed to be enduring among scientists/researchers who study it. When people talk about sexual orientation changing, what they are truly talking about (usually anyway) is sexual orientation identity, not actual sexual orientation...even when they don't qualify "sexual orientation" with the word identity. Like the Fluidity section of the Sexual orientation article currently states, "Often, sexual orientation and sexual identity are not distinguished, which can impact accurately assessing sexual identity and whether or not sexual orientation is able to change; sexual identity can change throughout a person's life and may at times not align with actual sexual orientation." The vast majority of scientists/researchers do not believe that actual sexual orientation can change, which is why the vast majority of them do not believe in sexual orientation change efforts. So I don't see what is wrong with stating "enduring" or "enduring pattern of" in this case; it is very much WP:Due weight. I also disagreed (and still disagree) with your proposal because it leaves out "romantic," when the authoritative scientific organizations include it, and because limiting the first sentence to biological sex, instead of stating "sex or gender" and "or to both sexes or more than one gender," has caused problems before, per what I stated above in this section. Since I am for going by what the authoritative sources state first and foremost in this case, I personally could go without emphasizing gender in the first sentence, and instead emphasize that with the "nuanced" part of the lead. But, again, leaving gender out of the first sentence will only cause problems. And since the American Psychological Association mixes up gender and biological sex (for example, by stating "to men, women, or both sexes"), even though they don't state "sex or gender," we might as well keep mention of gender in the first sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

On a side note: For why I am for keeping "emotional" out of the first sentence, see Talk:Bisexuality/Archive 3#"Romantic" and "emotional". Flyer22 (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey Flyer22. I have nothing to do with any ping. In fact you have just informed me about its existence. I have no intention of making any new discussion with you about this subject. My comment was directed to ImprovingWiki, as an explanation of where the present edition came from .--Auró (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The ping is when you link an editor's username; that's WP:Echo. And if this lead discussion continues, as a way to form a new lead, then I will be a part of it. You stated, "We can repeat the process, no problem, but based on authoritative references." I'm not going to excuse myself from forming the lead, not with the concerns that I have (as expressed above). Flyer22 (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22 that we should not rely on a book by a single author for a definition of sexual orientation. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

And so do I.--Auró (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Causes

In the causes section, a sentence states, "Homosexuality was considered to be the result of troubled family interactions or psychological development that was improper, but these assumptions were based on misinformation and prejudice." I suggest that this sentence be removed. It is made redundant by the sentence in the paragraph immediately above it stating, "There is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that early childhood experiences, parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation." I am not saying that the sentence is wrong; rather, that it is unnecessary overkill. I also think it is misplaced, since the purpose of the "causes" section should surely be to summarize current thinking about the subject rather than to discuss no longer accepted views. ImprovingWiki (talk) 07:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you mean about only having current views on causes in the Causes section; we do similarly for medical articles, regulating "no longer accepted" views among scientists to a History section or something similar. But, although sexual orientation is partly a medical topic, it is also very much a social topic and, in my opinion, a Causes section in this case is more comprehensive if it includes a bit of material on past scientific beliefs about sexual orientation. Besides that, as you know, homosexuality is still very controversial in 2014 and many people still think that "[homosexuality is] the result of troubled family interactions or psychological development that was improper." That's partly why sexual orientation change efforts still exist. I suggest you reorganize the two lines you cited above, perhaps using WP:In-text attribution for the "Homosexuality was considered" sentence, since that material is currently quoting the American Psychiatric Association but is not in quotation marks for its word-for-word parts. Or regulate that sentence to the Efforts to change sexual orientation section. Flyer22 (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The section on causes goes directly to "biology", and then some of the contend in this section is not properly biologic. I propose to make an introductory general paragraph, to center the subject, based on the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association references. In a second step, part of the biology section contend, that is not properly biological, would be placed in the now devoid "environmental factors" section. My proposal, open to discussion, is as follow:

"The exact causes for the development of a particular sexual orientation have not been established, in spite that a lot of research has been conducted to determine the influence of genetics, hormonal action, development dynamics, social and cultural influences. This has led many to think that biology and environment factors play a complex role in fixing it. It was once thought that homosexuality was the result of faulty psychological development, resulting from childhood experiences and troubled relationships, including childhood sexual abuse. It has been found that this was based on prejudice and misinformation".--Auró (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The Biology subsection in the Causes section is not strictly biological because of what the section states -- scientists these days generally don't think that sexual orientation is caused solely by biology or any other sole factor. As for your proposal, placing your proposed text as an introductory paragraph above the Biology section, and moving the "faulty psychological development" content there (and perhaps cutting back on any other redundancy), I am fine with doing that...except for the "fixing it" part; I think "fixing it" should be "causing it" or "forming it." We could also do similarly (for this article) to what we did with the beginning of the Causes section at the Homosexuality article; if I remember correctly, you are responsible for that introductory paragraph as well, and then I and another editor tweaked it. Flyer22 (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I will proceed in this direction.--Auró (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

For documentation on this talk page, this is the edit that Auró made. And I removed the redundant "Homosexuality was considered" material. Flyer22 (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC).

I propose to keep the first paragraph in section "hormones" and suppress the rest. The reason is that it contains excessive detail that can be found in the main article prenatal hormones and sexual orientation.--Auró (talk) 08:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

What you are proposing is WP:Summary style, and that is, of course, fine. But that first paragraph is too small. I think that either that paragraph should be fleshed out more or there should be two decent-sized paragraphs for that section. I feel similarly regarding any other section in the article that does not have one or more adequate WP:Summary style paragraphs. I'm not fond of sections that have only a little bit of material in them. Like MOS:Paragraphs states, "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." Flyer22 (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

To make a summary of this section is not a simple task. I will do it, but not immediately.--Auró (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Done, with material from Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation, sexual differentiation and androgen.--Auró (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. Flyer22 (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence of the Causes section was awkwardly worded (the "in spite of" clause, specifically), so I reworded it for clarity. I believe that my changes didn't change the meaning. The original read "The exact causes for the development of a particular sexual orientation have not been established, in spite that a lot of research has been conducted to determine the influence of genetics, hormonal action, development dynamics, social and cultural influences.", my edits split that into two sentences and changes "have not been established" to "have yet to be established", in order to justify the next sentence which speaks of on-going research: "The exact causes for the development of a particular sexual orientation have yet to be established. To date, a lot of research has been conducted to determine the influence of genetics, hormonal action, development dynamics, social and cultural influences—which has led many to think that biology and environment factors play a complex role in forming it." Silus Grok (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Silus Grok (talk · contribs), I'm fine with the change you made. Flyer22 (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)