Talk:Biology and sexual orientation

For 2004 August deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Genetic basis for homosexuality

Opening quote (APA)

I removed the bolded statements "sexual orientation" and "biology." The emphasis does not appear in the original, and the quote's relevance to these topics is obvious from it's inclusion in the article "Biology and sexual orientation." I consider this a minor edit, but the emphasis could return, with a notation "emphasis added." Any thoughts or preferances? Biccat (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Heretability Table

Estimates of heritability of homosexuality
Study	Male	Female
Hershberger, 1997	0%	48%
Bailey et al., 2000	30%
Kendler et al., 2000	28–65%
Kirk et al., 2000	30%	50–60%
Bearman et al., 2002	7.7%	5.3%

I have removed the heretability table until it can be corrected. Bearman et al did not estimate the heretabilities of same sex attraction to be 7.7% and 5.5% in males and females respectively. Those numbers refer to the concordance of homosexual attraction in MZ twins when at least one feels same sex attraction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domminico (talk • contribs) 23:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, well, isn't that what each of the other studies in the table also are based on: the concordance of homosexual attraction in MZ twins when at least one feels same sex attraction. The incidence of concordance is then taken as the measure of heretability. GiveItSomeThought (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the table is consistent - but heretability has a technical meaning in genetic epidemiology. I don't think the numbers in the table correspond to this (i may be wrong).15:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Scans see 'gay brain differences'

Scans see 'gay brain differences' 01:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Awful wording

The article reads, 'Biology and sexual orientation is the research within the field of biology with regard to investigating the nature of sexual orientation in humans and its causes.' Sorry to whoever wrote this, but it sounds awful. Just to start with, the beginning, 'Biology and sexual orientation is the research within the field of biology...' does not make sense. This needs to be rewritten so that it makes sense. Skoojal (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest avoiding the use of the term "etiology". From the WP article etiology "In medicine in particular, the term refers to the causes of diseases or pathologies", and the dictionary closest at hand (Penguin dictionary of Psychology) defines it with one short sentence "The study of the causes of disease". The use of this term very strongly implies that a homosexual sexual orientation is considered to be a disease or a pathology. It has been reverted once, and I'm choosing to abide by 1RR here. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What has this article got to do with the use of the word in medicine? If you read the etiology article again, it is a general word covering many fields, including biology. MickMacNee (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If you simply intend the term to mean "cause" then I suggest you use the word "cause". Anything related to the topic of sexual orientation will be read by many who will read the term as it is defined (as for example, in a dictionary of psychological terms cited above) as meaning "cause of disease". The only reason I can think of for using the term "etiology" rather than "cause" is the different implication of the common psychology/medical definition. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm using it to represent its universal meaning:- "The study of causes or origins." in biology. This is supported by wording of the second reference of this article: "No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.... there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality", from the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrics. Presumably they know what the word means. So I'll ask you once again, what has an article on the biological causes and origins of sexual orientation got to do with fields of medicine/psychology and how they choose to further define the meaning of what is otherwise frankly a universal word? MickMacNee (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You ask "So I'll ask you once again, what has an article on the biological causes and origins of sexual orientation got to do with fields of medicine/psychology" and I'll reply once again that it's pretty obvious. I doubt very much that any biologist uses the term "etiology" without being aware of the inference of disease. Clearly, you & I are merely two samples, and I'm prepared to be swayed by evidence against my opinion, I'll go ask for further input elsewhere. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

So a biologist is never going to use the word if he isn't talking about disease? Patent nonsense. But if you have to go to such an obviously biased place to prove your point, go right ahead. Quite what is wrong with the standard third opinion process I have no idea. MickMacNee (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead with WP:THIRD fine by me (I wasn't under the impression that this rose to the status of a "dispute"). I thought you were saying that if folks like the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrics used the word, then it was unreasonable of me to assume that it would be at all offensive to Gays and Lesbians, or --more to the point-- to misrepresent the views of researchers on this topic, so how better to determine that than to ask our fellow wikipedians over at WikiProject Sexology and sexuality? Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"So a biologist is never going to use the word if he isn't talking about disease?" well, as a biologist who does research into the biological influences on adult behaviour, I would certainly not use it unless I was referring to a disease. In the approximately twenty years I've been doing research in behavioural biology I don't think I've heard it used as a drop-in term for "cause" as you seem to think is common. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of 'etiology' as a replacement for the word 'cause' is your assertion, not mine. I am using it in its defined literal context in the field of biology and science in general, to mean the study of the causes and origins of something. If your personal opinion is that this meaning would be so bizarre to anybody else reading this article, or that it is so obviously yet another banned hate word in this context because you say so, then change the etiology article, and change the various dictionary definitions that are not about the specific definition about disease, if you are honestly that sure that your opinon is correct. MickMacNee (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It is my considered opinion, based on my years of personal experience as a behavioural biologist engaged in scientific research, that any biologist seeing the term "etiology" applied to sexual orientation would assume that it was being used in the the medical/psychiatric/psychological sense of "cause of disease". I am not asserting that a dictionary definition of etiology doesn't include definitions which apply to causes of things other than disease. I've changed it once, I'll leave it to others to enlighten me as to whether my personal experience is out of touch with reality. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well it's a moot point now, thanks to a fly-by edit by Joshuajohanson (talk · contribs) presumably in response to this [1]. MickMacNee (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And I can't honestly see what the relevance is between the provided edit summary most of this page and most of medical world does not say biology causes homosexuality, just contributes to it, and the actual dispute over the use of the word in the context here. Is the assertion supposed to be that somehow, the research described in this article actualy begins with the premise that there is no bilogical etiology to be found? That they are therefore only concerned with proving the existence of a contributing factor? (which is what the replaced wording now reads as). MickMacNee (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the edit summary addresses the point either, and the distinction between "cause" and "contributes to" has always seemed sophistry to me. MickMacNee, if the rationale doesn't satisfy you the you can always just revert it and wait for more opinion to appear. I wish you wouldn't, but I'm not going to revert again, or wikilawyer XRR on you. I'd rather see more input on the point. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Both etiology and cause suggest that it is the sole factor in the development in homosexuality, whereas contributes suggest there are other factors involved. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And how is that a bad thing? i.e. in a lead sentence explaining the topic of the article, biological research into orientation, opening with the statement that there is ongoing research into whether there is a biologcal etiology to orientation? What is the problem here? With your edit summary, and its repetition above, you seem to be making a general point, instead of addressing a specific problem with the actual form of the lead sentence before you changed it. How exactly do you start research holding a pre-determined opinon that you are only looking for a contributory factor and not a cause? The lack of consensus resulting from research is already stated later in the lead, your objection on these grounds seems wholly pointless. MickMacNee (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The intro should be a summary for the article. The source says that "there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality."[2] However, there are plenty of studies supporting biological contributions to the development of homosexuality, and that is what the rest of the article is about. The view of a minority of psychologists that homosexuality is solely determined by biological factors should not outweigh the majority of psychologists and official statements that indicate homosexuality results from a combination of factors. I don't mind having a section about the fact that some people are looking for or believe there to be a sole biological cause, but that isn't the majority view and should not be in the first sentence. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You've completely missed the point. The first statement described the basic topic of the article, that research into biological etiology of orientation is ongoing. It said nothing about the current state of the art or the conclusions currently drawn from that. Even if it said 'cause', which 'etiology' is not a replacement word for, that would not be implying what you are claiming it does. You cannot start any research with the pre-determined idea that you will not find a sole cause, nor that you will. But you can undertake research into biological etiology, period. I fail to understand this basic breakdown of understanding the English language. The current wording is meaningless, and your correction to 'contribution' wasn't justified. MickMacNee (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion: I think both your points of view would be correctly represented if the article separated the biological correlates of sexual orientation (which are directly observed and generally accepted) from the various interpretations of whether those correlates reflect causes of sexual orientation (which is more contested). I think readers would be very interested in hearing about all the (many) correlates and about experts' various interpreations of those correlates.

Personally, I see little value in trying to describe what is "generally" accepted: There is no way to know (it isn't as if scientists get surveyed no one conducts surveys of scientists), and not all scientists are created equal. A great many of the authors who publish opinions on this topic know very little about biology, despite being legitimate experts on other aspects of sexual orientation.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wording still awful

The article reads, 'In the topic of biology and sexual orientation, ongoing scientific research is examining the possibility of there existing a specific biological contribution to the ultimate development of a specific sexual orientation in human beings.' Sorry, but that still sounds awful. Just to begin with, that sentence should not start with the words, 'In the topic of biology and sexual orientation.' The rest is pretty bad too (please don't use the word 'specific' twice in one sentence), and perhaps POVish. Skoojal (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Why merge the pages?

Why not, I say. I can't see a good reason for keeping them separate. Much (maybe most) research on sexual orientation is biological now anyway. If there is no "Non-Biological Influences on Sexual Orientation" article, I can't see any reason why there should be a "Biology and Sexual Orientation" article. Skoojal (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The proposal is to merge Sexual orientation and Biology and sexual orientation? (someone ought to put a merge proposal tag on Sexual orientation then). True there is no Non-Biological Influences on Sexual Orientation article, but there is Homosexuality#Non-biological_explanations (and note that Homosexuality#Biological_explanations replicates much of the material in the merge candidates you identify). I'm neutral on this, but would suggest that Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation and Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation would make better merge candidates for Biology and sexual orientation. Sexual orientation seems an umbrella article, I count 13 subarticles linked to in main and further templates. I can't see why questions of biological causation ought to be privileged/persecuted (whatever) with a merge up. But I can certainly see why Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation and Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation might be merged in here. It is my personal preference that articles be small and tightly focussed, rather than large and all-encompassing. I'd also prefer that articles remain tightly focussed for another reason, one I find harder to expalin so I'll just provide an example. When I first created the Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation article, it wasn't called that, it was called Fraternal birth order. I'd hoped to write an article on Fraternal birth order and it's influences on psychological traits other than sexual orientation (I'm an aggression researcher, that's down the hall from Sex Research, no one ever comes to visit, I donno why...) one day there will be a bunch of very interesting things to say about fraternal birth order and social behaviour in general (violence is far more interesting than sex) or fraternal birth order an behaviour in mice (mice are more interesting than humans), and I think merging al these small articles just restricts further development of good articles on those topics by channelling discussion of the sub topics to the main article they are merged into. Not a really strongly held opinion, Just my 2c. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pete Hurd. There is a lot of information in this article and merging the two would overwhelm the sexual orientation article. I am working on an Environment and sexual orientation article, which will go more in depth on some of the principles in the Environment section on the homosexuality page. Give me some time to do this. I have been working on several different articles, but the Environment article should be ready soon. Joshuajohanson (talk) 06:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That 'Homosexuality#Biological_explanations replicates much of the material in the merge candidates you identify' is part of the problem. I have suggested that this material be deleted. I can't see any reason for not deleting it, although I've refrained from doing so immediately. Whether biological explanations of sexual orientation are correct or not isn't the issue; the only issue is, do they need a separate article from sexual orientation. I think the answer is no. I don't think environmental explanations of sexual orientation deserve their own article either (it might be possible to create an entire article about theories about how sexual orientation could be a choice; that doesn't mean it would be a good idea). Skoojal (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Both articles are already huge... truthfully, the sexual orientation article itself needs to be reduced in size with various aspects pushed to their own main articles... merging moth of these articles would be counter-productive. Besides, sexual orientation as a whole and sexual orientation as biology relates to it are two different issues... one includes the latter, but the latter is only a small part of the wider subject.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimsone (talk • contribs)

I don't think the sexual orientation article is "huge" or needs to be reduced in size. It is an OK size for an article. Some of the material in the two articles overlaps, so I don't think merging them should be such a problem. Nevertheless, I won't do this if there isn't agreement. Skoojal (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, just checked the size, and it's not. However, it's still about as clear as mud, and if it were written clearly and comprehensively, it would be. In any article where it's realated to another article, some information overlaps. There's nothing wrong with that - it's normal.Crimsone (talk) 08:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing you rewrite the article! In the mean time, I am abandoning the merger proposal, due to lack of support. Pete Hurd has a point that 'Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation and Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation would make better merge candidates'; I'll suggest this at some point in the future. Skoojal (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll be waiting for a long time... I don't partake of such serious edits anymore on account of being sick of the absolute pigswill that tends to follow them (the reason for which being evident from my talk page)... Actually, it's a wonder I'm still here... why I've even returned a little bit is something I'm still trying to work out. Crimsone (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want to edit the article yourself, then you could give me your suggestions, and I'll edit it. I'm not frightened of pigswill; I've given people my share of it. Skoojal (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"Karolinska" ref

Our article says of Långström et al study "They found that homosexuality was largely due to environmental factors, not genetics." and yet the linked to article Society's attitudes have little impact on choice of sexual partner with blurbs by Långström says the exact opposite. "The results show, that familial and public attitudes might be less important for our sexual behaviour than previously suggested", says Associate Professor Niklas Långström, one of the involved researchers. "Instead, genetic factors and the individual's unique biological and social environments play the biggest role." The study reports the exact opposite of what this article says it does. The linked-to article reports "Overall, the environment shared by twins (including familial and societal attitudes) explained 0-17% of the choice of sexual partner, genetic factors 18-39% and the unique environment 61-66%. The individual's unique environment includes, for example, circumstances during pregnancy and childbirth, physical and psychological trauma (e.g., accidents, violence, and disease), peer groups, and sexual experiences." this seems totally at odds with how it is portrayed here. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Pete, Genetic factors came in at 18% to 39%, environmental factors came in at a whoppping 61% to 66%. Social factors came in a mere 0% to 17%. BTW, I just can't get the reference hooked up to save my life. I think it's because it's in some way hidden. Hopefully whoever runs that can hook it up properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.131.47 (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I should add that Michael Bailey recently stated that another massive twin study was due out soon. I think he implied it would be the best yet. Uggh... didn't sign in for last comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duper-Super-1000 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, unique environment was a whoppping 61% to 68, that's really quite different from "environment" in the sense of "social factors". Note that "genetics" is significant in the results. I ask you, does the sentence "They found that homosexuality was largely due to environmental factors, not genetics." have the same meaning as "The results show, that familial and public attitudes might be less important for our sexual behaviour than previously suggested [...] Instead, genetic factors and the individual's unique biological and social environments play the biggest role." because as I read it, they don't an our article is dishonestly twisting the results of the study. "familial and societal attitudes explained 0-17% of the choice of sexual partner, genetic factors 18-39%" just doesn't seem to me to justify the sentence "They found that homosexuality was largely due to environmental factors, not genetics.". Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Pete if you read the blurb on the study and the press releases related to this study "environment" does not mean socialization. They believe it is largely due to biological environment, not social. According to this study the biological environment is significantly more impactful than genetics. 18% to 39% for genes is much smaller than 61% to 66% for environment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duper-Super-1000 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If the author of the study summarizes the results as: genetics and unique environment are important while familial and public attitudes are not, then why write here that it found that genetics are not important? Doesn't that seem askew to you? Why not just honestly report the findings of the study. The authors don't draw any distinction between biological environment and social environment (because there isn't really one) Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Pete I quoted the exact release from the study. Genes came in way lower than environment. 18 to 39 for genes is way lower than 61 to 66 for environment. I'm not sure what you are getting at.

What I'm getting at is that the study is presented in this article as providing evidence against the effect of biological factors in sexual orientiation (which is the topic of this article), when the study and it's authors conclude the opposite. The study is presented against the view (quoting one of the study's author's book) that "Research efforts to identify psychosocial factors in the development of sexual orientation have turned up virtually nothing. In fact, the ‘research’ is often not actually research in the scientific sense” [...] “such views of the origins of human sexual orientation are just plain wrong” [...] “…we have shown that social factors play no appreciable role in the development of sexual orientation”. The study demonstrates the importance of biological factors, and the unimportance of social factors, and yet it is presented in the article as the opposite. This is done by the muddling of the two forms of environmental influence, unique and shared. This muddling does nothing to honestly educate the readership, but merely serves to obfuscate. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Pete, the release which I included in quotes stated several things that environment could potentially include. Many, if not most of these factors were biological. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duper-Super-1000 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If you could please start specifying which "environment" you mean in sentences like that, it would make it so much easier for me... I take it you mean "circumstances during pregnancy and childbirth, physical and psychological trauma (e.g., accidents, violence, and disease), peer groups, and sexual experiences." when you say "biological". Social factors act on us through the effects they have on our hormones, gene transcription, etc. The biggest influences on our stress hormones come from our social environment, the division between social and biological is illusiory, unlike the distinction between unique and shared environment. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Pete, you are correct. The text in quotes came directly from their study and it explained what the researchers meant by environment. Most of what they listed was biological. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.131.47 (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this original research?

From the article:

"Twin studies have received a number of criticisms including ascertainment bias where homosexuals with gay siblings are more likely to volunteer for studies. As all the studies show, homosexuality cannot be purely genetic, otherwise, all identical twins would have the identical sexual orientation as their twin."

Is it original research? Darimoma (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

From Bailey's research:

This suggests that concordances from prior studies were inflated inflated because of concordance-dependent ascertainment bias (Kendler & Eaves, 1989). In those studies, twins deciding whether to participate in a study clearly related to homosexuality probably considered the sexual orientation of their co-twins before agreeing to participate.[3]

It could probably be reworded, but the general principle is true. Many studies may have biases, according to Bailey's observations. Also it can't be completely genetic, though that doesn't mean it isn't completely biological. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know why I put in that first sentence. I just meant the second sentence.

While I agree the data looks like it's not just a genetic thing, I'm not sure one can conclude from it that it cannot be purely genetic - identical twins don't have identical DNA[4]. I think a more fitting conclusion would be that it is highly improbable that it's not purely genetic, but, again, that's original research. Darimoma (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The argument that since identical twins are concordant for sexual orientation at far less than 100% that genetic influences cannot explain all variation is very very far from OR. I don't have an introductory psych text book at hand, but I would expect that argument to be presented in most, if not all. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there an online source we can use? Darimoma (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

From the first introductory psychology textbook I crack open (Schacter et al (2009) Psychology Worth ISBN 978-1-4292-0264-0) on pg 435:

"However, scientific research has failed to identify any aspect of parenting that has a significant impact on sexual orientation (Bell, Weinberg, & Hammersmith, 1981), and indeed, children raised by homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are equally likely to become heterosexual adults (Patterson, 1995). There is also little support for the idea that a person's early sexual encounters have a lasting impact on his or her sexual oreintation (Bohan, 1996). On the other hand, there is considerable evidence to suggest that genetics plays a role in determining sexual orientation. Gay men and bisexuals tend to have a larger proportion of gay and lesbian siblings than do heterosexuals (Bailey et al., 1999). Furthermore, the idential twin of a gay man (with whom he shares 100% of his genes) has a 50% chance of being homosexual, whereas the fraternal twin or non twin brother of a gay man (with whom he shares 50% of his genes) has only a 15% chance (Bailey & Pillard, 1991; Gladue, 1994). A similar pattern has emerged in studies of women (Bailey et al., 1993). In addition, some evidence suggests that the fetal environment may play a role in determining sexual orientation and that high levels of androgens predispose the fetus -whether male or female- later to develop a sexual preference for women (Ellis & Ames, 1987; Mayer-Bahlberg et al., 1995). Of course, biology cannot be the sole determinant of a person's sexual orientation because, as these figures indicate, homosexual men and women often have twins who are genetically identical, who shared their fetal environment, and who are heterosexual nonetheless."

(emphasis in original) Now, I could quibble with some of the details there, but I think that accurately describes the view of mainstream scientists on the matter (and clearly shows that the point in question is far from OR). Note also, I read about a dozen or so intro psych texts this summer (all candidates to be our new intro psych course textbook) and none of them had anything really different to say from the quote above (and when I was teaching a more advance Behavioural Genetics course, the textbook said about the same thing as well. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking Schacter et al isn't published yet? Don't want to be a pain, but have you got any already-published sources (or is there an earlier edition of the book)? Darimoma (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's published. New texts for the fall term typically have the next years date, I donno why... must be the same marketing think as new cars Pete.Hurd (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, cool, man. Cheers - top stuff. I'll add it in when I get the chance. Darimoma (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Darimoma (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

sociobiology?

Is this a part of sociobiology? I don't see any cross-references between the two articles, but the research seems similar (investigating to what extent social behavior is determined by biology). --Delirium (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe this as part of sociobiology. Sociobiological explanations focus on Ultimate, functional explanations for behavioural variatio, while this article focusses on proximate explanations, so I see these two topics talking past each other. Pete.Hurd (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah yeah, that makes sense. I was mostly thinking of the connection in terms of both approaches being charged with biological determinism on occasion, although oddly the sides seem to flipped in terms of which side the political liberals vs. conservatives are on. --Delirium (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The left-right orientation of nature vs nurture has a long history of not being consistently oriented one way or the other when examined carefully. Off the top of my head Segerstrale's book contains a long riff on this topic. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for the reference. I may have the opposite impression due to being an academic with a lot of humanities colleagues (though I'm a computer scientist myself)—among the left-leaning folks, anyway, social-construction theories are nearly universally held, especially if you wander into an area like gender. --Delirium (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hyper-heterosexuality in women

I think this may be a useful resource, but I'm not quite sure about how to go about incorporating the information. [5]

Particularly of note: Camperio Ciani emphasises that, rather than being a "gay gene", this unidentified genetic factor is likely to promote sexual attraction to men in both men and women. This would influence a woman's attitude rather than actually increasing her fertility, making her likely to have more children.