Talk:Homosexuality

Arabic wikipedia

i'm not exactly sure where to put this, but this looks like the best place i can think of right now. after looking at the arabic version of this article through google translate[1] i noticed how its extremely biased...more than you could imagine without looking. i know that most speakers of arabic live in a very different culture with regards to homosexuality, but wikipedia is still about free knowledge from a neutral point of view. we dont censor the chinese wikipedia, so why this? maybe someone on the english wikipedia with knowledge of arabic could assist in transferring some information? some collaboration maybe... 68.193.106.206 (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it's a mess. Perhaps we have one or more Arabic speakers who will happen to see this and go work on the article, but the first place to comment is really on the talk page of the article on Arabic Wikipedia. Rivertorch (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

yeah, good luck with that. it looks like they view it as neutral for the most part. one user even proposes it be made a non-gay encyclopedia. i think maybe this should be taken to a higher body, like the wikimedia people or something. i probably should have done that in the first place, but in doubt of where to go i came here. thanks 68.193.106.206 (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is revolting. Somebody please do something about this. Their lead-in image is a picture of an anti-gay protest for god's sake! Zazaban (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is Wikipedia. You could try replacing it, but you'd have to write the caption in Arabic or put in a translation request, I suppose. Rivertorch (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It may make sense to simply translate our article but having someone watching that site would be the real issue. LGBT does have some interpreters and there is a whole translation project as well. Realistically that can't be the only wikiproject and article that is back-asswards. -- Banjeboi 20:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Causes

Problems w/ benjeboi's edits:

1) Implies every reason besides genetics and environment is minor.

2) Implies fraternal birth order and prenatal hormones, etc are not environmental.

3) Fraternal bits is fringe? Do not revert b4 you understand the material you are reverting.

4) Its better when everything is linked on the main page since everything is so fragmented.

5) Possibly in combination is also misleading cause not 1 single mainstream organization says its one or the other. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Every reason is either genetics and/or environmental; the other theories are subsets of the former and fraternal birth order and sexual orientation is particularly unhelpful to present as anything but a disputed theory. It may be true but Blanchards work is routinely propagated on Wikipedia and we should not be a part of it. Let that article make a case that is compelling enough to warrant it's inclusion here. Certainly unacceptable for the lede. If it's to be included let's find a NPOV to do so without putting undue weight on it. And i completely disagree that 5 section header "go here" links are helpful. I think it's actually harmful and clutters the section. The lede to fraternal birth order and sexual orientation is a hint that we should be careful giving much weight to this - A correlation between fraternal birth order and sexual orientation has been suggested by recent research. This might not be fringe but it's surely not mainstream either. Once that article improves to show it's a mainstream concept then we probably should include it. -- Banjeboi 03:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

When you cut the lead, it doesnt make sense. 1st reason is conditional on the 2nd. And it isnt just Blanchard. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole lede is a bit of a mess IMHO and will need to be cleaned-up. This is bu one IMHO, minor issue. -- Banjeboi 07:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I give up. There are many papers on this. This is also part of "hormonal" in 'The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that "sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences."'. I have no clue why u think this is fringe but I had enough of your edit wars. Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not an edit war. The fraternal birth order and sexual orientation article states it is not mainstream. Looking at the sources it's also a bit Blanchard-heavy which to me is a red-flag. The Pubmed linked source seems to capture the spirit of things a bit ....

“ The lack of relationship between the strength of the effect and degree of homosexual feelings in the men and women suggests the influence of birth order on homosexual feelings was not due to a biological, but a social process in the subjects studied. ”

That seems to directly contradict the theory. How do you suggest we include it to accurately represent this? -- Banjeboi 03:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

We could say something like: Studies have been done to show correlations between fraternal birth order and sexual orientation. However, the complexity of confounding factors have suggested this correlation was not necessarily biological but was possibly a social process in the subjects studied. Does that sound like the accurate summary which can include the data from the potential fringes while sticking to the supposedly mainstream viewpoint all at once? ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 03:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That seems to directly contradict the theory? That?

"Studies of the 2-3% of persons who identify as homosexual found men but not women had more older brothers than persons who identify as heterosexual. The present study investigated the birth order in the approximately 20% of men and women who anonymously report some homosexual feelings, few of whom identify as homosexual." [2] Phoenix of9 (talk) 04:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm totally ignorant about how much due weight to give to various academic works on psychiatry or sexology, but is that abstract on haworthpress.com giving us a reliable source to show the fraternal birth order is a correlation, or is it causation? I am a layperson with no specialist understanding of which experts are to be believed with which amounts of weightiness. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 04:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It isnt about fraternal birth order among gay men. Phoenix of9 (talk) 04:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh goodness, now that i've seen your newest edits, i understand much better; i am fuzzyheaded and will come back to this on a different day. Sometimes when the same paragraphs have scrolled past my eyebrows too many days in a row, i get all blurrr. Thanks for those good additions today. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 04:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Fraternal birth order

Kudos to everyone for the hard work so far on the article. I have some concern over the removal of material—fully sourced to peer-reviewed journals—relating to fraternal birth order. Some discussion here is probably appropriate before it is summarily axed. Rivertorch (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we must include some mention of Fraternal Birth Order as part of some theories, because it is so widely mentioned in recent years. But we must be careful to include this in such a way as to avoid the appearance of endorsing a theory as though it were proven (when it's highly speculative), and we must certainly mention that these studies have very huge confounding factors. Due to the unproven and speculative nature of Fraternal Birth Order as a factor, i don't think it belongs in the lede paragraphs, i think it belongs in the appropriate subsections instead. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 04:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No argument from this quarter. Anything that's speculative should be identified as such, although the speculativeness also should be sourced. Rivertorch (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I've formatted these sections to keep the discussion together. I'm not convinced it needs to stay or go but what we had seemed flawed so it should be worked out what we can state clearly and factually with due weight. The only link I was able to access through the Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation article seems to suggest that the effect had more to do with socialing aspects of having more older brothers than any biological factor. Had I even never heard of Blanchard I would readily accept a lot of what our article states. Unfortunately a lot of Blanchard's research is, shall we say - disputed. Fraternal birth order theories are new and like the pubmed article above points out, many follow-up articles disavow all the previous results with a net zero gain. So then we're simply stating theory exists which is probably not the best information here. I'm very concerned we don't aid and abet promulgating propaganda of Blanchard et al. See this at work at Ray_Blanchard#Fraternal_birth_order_effect; that s a BLP, no less. Where does this body of research seem to originate? Why by studying homosexual pedophiles of course![3] I'll be more swayed when researchers independent of Blanchard et al create original studies above reproach the arrive at the same results. We all would love to know the million dollar answer what causes gayness but the fraternal birth order bits seem to be widely propogated rather than widely proven. We should write carefullt and cautiously -- Banjeboi 14:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Bogaert's study Phoenix of9 (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Bogaert seems to have close connection with Blanchard and has co-authored a few papers with them. [4] They might not be as independent as we would want to support some content. -- Banjeboi 23:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: instead of our deciding that the research is flawed, shouldn't we find a reliable source that says that the research is flawed? That it's widely propagated is a valid enough reason to include it, along with appropriate sourced caveats, since that might dissuade casual editors of the future from inserting it without caveats. Rivertorch (talk) 06:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm loathe to include it or Handedness and sexual orientation as they're both rather speculative and messy. At best "the jury's still out" seems to sum this up. The closest I'm coming up with is something akin to research continues as these are under the umbrella of biology and sexual orientation which is well-written and watched over. Instead of a list of wobbly theories accompanied by explanantion they are disputed, etc. I'm still leaning that leaving them out and vaguely referencing that "other" theories exist and sending readers to the two main articles is better service. -- Banjeboi 10:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I basically agree with you. I don't have any familiarity with college level textbooks on queer studies nor sexology, but if we could see how they organize and index their references to studies, whether biology, sociology, psychology, anthropology, zoology, whichever then we might get a clearer picture of which well-explained parts need the proper due weight versus which theoretical areas are still mainly speculative. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 11:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It's too new and vastly uncharted is part of the general issue - also why i think what we have presently is pretty good. The issue on Wikipedia is a preponderance of Blanchard content, and yes you can read waaaay into what I mean by that. Check out Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory or Homosexual transsexual for instance. They are but the tip of the iceberg and seemingly anything that a Blanchard paper could be made into an article is. If you look at those articles they are simply huge yet these are disputed and contentious subjects with ... committed editors intent on propogating the information in all sorts of places. I'm sure the drama will come here too but for now they have other articles to play on. In any case I'd rather be as neutral and detached as possible so we neither lend credibility where it shouldn't be or disparage a proven scientific finding. I think the jury is still out on this though. -- Banjeboi 13:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You're quite correct. Fortunately, we can easily apply a litmus test of "how much actual scientific study has been done" versus how much speculative philosophy abounds, and our choice of emphasis for due weight can be simply based on the most educational resources whose facts have the most rigorous testing versus those which are notably regarded as fringe ideas with no body of evidence. I see what you mean about the propagation of disputed materials, so my guess is we could look to the textbooks among various curricula in reputable institutions of higher education renowned for their departments of LGBT studies. Sadly, i'm only a layman, i have a fascination with the topics but a lack of specialized expertise. That's why i'm hoping we can get more Peer Review volunteers from among venerated scholars of homosexuality. I feel that way about numerous sub-topics on the Homosexuality/LGBT_project. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 14:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Per Benjiboi's comment, I withdraw my original objection. As long as we link to the articles that discuss the research, we don't need it here at this time. Rivertorch (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny numbers

In the history section, we have the following sentence:

In a detailed compilation of historical and ethnographic materials of Preindustrial Cultures, "strong disapproval of homosexuality was reported for 41% of 42 cultures; it was accepted or ignored by 21%, and 12% reported no such concept.

Arithmetic has never been my strong suit, but none of the percentages supplied seem to amount to a whole number. Even when I round off, it doesn't compute. I have no idea whether these figures are also sourced from the Bancroft-Reinisch work cited for the next sentence, but could someone please check? It probably should be reworded with actual numbers, not percentages, but if it's going to use percentages then they need to be accurate. Rivertorch (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(Found the eBook) The whole thing is a direct quote from Bancroft and Reinisch. So yeah, those are the figures they give. – Steel 14:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Heres the whole page: User_talk:Haiduc#Homosexuality Phoenix of9 (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Aaarrghhh. Then the whole thing is called into question, as far as I'm concerned. Consider: 41% of 42 is 17.22, and the last time I checked, it's pretty hard to quantify a fraction of a culture. Rivertorch (talk) 06:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, that kills it as far as I'm concerned. Remove it, please god, it is a monstrosity. Zazaban (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are both ignoring a basic tenet of statistics, which is that ratios in a subset are indicative of ratios in the main set. That is why we can poll 1000 people in a town on their party preferences and extrapolate from that the way that town leans. Unless you are prepared to show how the sample polled by Bancroft-Reinisch is NOT representative of the whole, we have to accept their numbers as valid. Haiduc (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not so sure. With nice round numbers like 1000 or 100, percentages are always easy to check and meaningful. In the case of other numbers, not so. In this case, we're talking about 42 cultures. If 17 of them disapprove strongly, then .4047619 of the cultures disapprove, and that should be rounded down to 40 percent, not up to 41 percent. Or supposing it's 18 cultures that disapprove: then it's .42857143, which rounds up to 43 percent. There is no whole number that rounds to 41 percent of 42. Yes, the 42 may a subset of the main set, but it is not clear why the sample was reduced to 42 for this particular question. Neither is it clear that the question was considered in the context of the main set. And even if it was, that still doesn't explain where the 41 percent came from because the largest set mentioned—186—can't produce 41 percent as a whole number either. I have no idea whether the research itself was sloppy or the presentation was sloppy or that there is something I'm totally missing here. It has been a while since I worked with statistics (in the context of analyzing political polling data, strangely enough) and the mind grows fuzzy. I can say this much: if the numbers are correct and there's just something arcane going on here that requires a statistician to understand, then it seems to me we should be paraphrasing in the article, not posting actual figures that are going to confuse the vast majority of WP's readers. (You know, all 53,842,106.7 of them.) Rivertorch (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The study addresses a question that has rarely if ever been studied in this way, and provides interesting information. I do not find it confusing, and we cannot take upon ourselves the onus of reader confusion, as long as we write clearly. If Bancroft-Reinisch felt the results are significant enough to publish we should not second guess them since they are the authorities, and not we. It would be different if they were critiqued by their peers. A short search shows nothing amiss with their standing as seasoned scholars and academics. Haiduc (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

All right. You make some good points, but I'm troubled by the idea of blindly accepting everything from a source verbatim just because the source is reliable. Seasoned scholars and academics aren't always good writers, after all, and they've even been known to make a mistake. By and large, it's not up to us to question what they write, but I don't think the taboo on original research extends to using a calculator. In a nutshell, my view is that even if we write clearly, the clarity of the article can be compromised if we quote others who write unclearly, and paraphrasing might be in order here rather than parroting these exact but confusing and questionable figures. If anyone else agrees, I'll attempt a rewrite; otherwise, I'm not going to beat a dead horse indefinitely. The article has bigger issues than this one yet to be addressed. 14:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Brokeback

This—

(recently some fashionable young Chinese tend to euphemistically use the term "brokeback," 斷背 duanbei to refer to male homosexuals, from the success of director Ang Lee's film Brokeback Mountain)

—doesn't belong in the History section. I tend to think it's not significant enough to be retained anywhere in this article, but I'm open to persuasion. Rivertorch (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

homosexual couples more likely to split than heterosexual couples?

The point about homosexual couples being more likely to split than heterosexual couples seems misleading or maybe irrelevant because when reading reference [38] it says:

"[the model] indicates that the excess risk of divorce of gay partnerships tends to disappear when the comparison is based on [both homosexual and heterosexual] childless couples."

what do you think?

130.88.243.132 (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)sian

Good call, I've cleaned up that section. -- Banjeboi 22:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just the conceptual definition

Nothing about the manner to express the sexuality and the role. Aren't dominants and submissives two different types? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.182.171 (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking, perhaps you meant to pose a question at Talk:Dominance and submission. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 11:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That's about the role within a BDSM relationship. Aren't homosexual submissives more likely to be "womanlike", physically weak, impotent and unlikely to switch roles or have sexual relationships with women? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.182.171 (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside any comment about unhelpful stereotypes, I'll say simply that your question seems to relate not to homosexuality per se but rather to individual roles within certain relationships which could involve same-sex partners of either sex or opposite-sex partners. If you're just curious, try the Reference desk. If you want to improve this article, seek out a reliable source or two that relates to your question and to homosexuality, then bring back what you found and let's have a look. Rivertorch (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If a lesbian is a "homosexual submissive" and she is likely to be "womanlike" then what does that have to do with her impotence, and what roles should she have if she switches her relationships with women? My hypothetical questions are intended to convey my being totally baffled by the ambiguity of 79.118.182.171's questions, so perhaps i have a language barrier or some blockage to my comprehension. This TalkPage is for discussing the improvements to the article about Homosexuality. I don't think we have room to go into Dominance and Submission and Womanlike and Impotent hypotheticals unless they pertain directly to our primary points about Homosexuality. Or so i've been led to believe. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 21:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that while in a sex act between two male homosexuals the one in control does it for sexual stimulation followed by orgasm and ejaculation, I do not understand the submissives especially if generally not seeking and desiring penetrative sexual intercourse acts where they're in control. An article about homosexuality should explain such things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.183.64 (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Not all gay sex is dom/sub. Very little of it is. I don't think you quite understand the dynamics of it. Zazaban (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Freud

The article states, 'The earliest writers on a homosexual orientation usually understood it to be intrinsically linked to the subject's own sex. For example, it was thought that a typical female-bodied person who is attracted to female-bodied persons would have masculine attributes, and vice versa.[30] This understanding was shared by most of the significant theorists of homosexuality from the mid 19th to early 20th centuries, such as Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, Richard von Krafft-Ebing, Magnus Hirschfeld, Havelock Ellis, Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud, as well as many gender variant homosexual people themselves. However, this understanding of homosexuality as sexual inversion was disputed at the time, and through the second half of the 20th century, gender identity came to be increasingly seen as a phenomenon distinct from sexual orientation.'

I'm no fan of Freud, whose views I think are totally discredited, but I have to say in fairness that this information is not correct. Freud did not think that homosexual men were necessarily effeminate or had 'feminine attributes', and was in fact clear that a person's degree of masculinity/feminity is largely independent of his or her sexual orientation. I'll try and look up information about Freud's actual views and quote it here, to suggest some corrections. Incidentally, the way this is written implies that a person's degree of masculinity/femininity is the same thing as their gender identity, which I don't think is correct. Born Gay (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm uncertain about the accuracy of other information in this section as well. For instance, the article says about Richard Friedman: 'As a consequence, he reasons, male homosexuals are not abnormal, never having been sexually attracted to their mothers anyway.' This hardly makes sense. Being sexually attracted to one's mother is normal, according to standard Freudian thought, so to reason from people not being sexually attracted to their mothers to their not being abnormal makes no sense. It also seems inappropriately written, informal tone, etc. Born Gay (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

reproduction not possible

I placed a sentence at the and of paragraph 1 modeled after the matching one at Heterosexuality

The physical action of homosexual relations is not capable of sexual reproduction among humans without the use of assisted reproductive technology.

-Zeus-^u|c 19:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I added something more. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And thx, you gave me an excellent idea. We can have a reproduction subsection and merge parenting section there. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to revise this passage twice, mainly just for the syntax, and it's been reverted twice. I'm not going to get into a revert war. Here's the passage as it now stands:

The physical action of homosexual relations is not capable of sexual reproduction among humans without the use of current assisted reproductive technologies. In the future, however, lesbian couples may have their own biological children from eachother, as well as gay men thanks to stem cell research.

"The physical action of homosexual relations is not capable of sexual reproduction" is overly wordy; why not "Homosexual relations cannot result in sexual reproduction"?

"In the future, however, lesbian couples may have their own biological children from eachother, as well as gay men" -- Does this mean that lesbian couples may have their own biological children from gay men? That's what it says. "From" is the wrong preposition here in any case, and "eachother" is not a word.

User:Phoenix of9 has reverted this passage to the same wording three times now, which I believe is a violation of WP:3RR. Agathman (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Wording such as this: "In the future, however, gay and lesbian couples may have their own biological children from each other" makes it confusing. This may mean something like this: [5], ie: one of the gay couple can inseminate (natural or via Artificial insemination or IVF) one of the lesbian couple. And four of them raising the kid(s) together. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not really the most obvious interpretation. Zazaban (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"gay and lesbian couples may have their own biological children from each other". What does "each other" mean exactly? Within couples or between couples? Thats what I'm talking about. Current wording does not make that clear. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Then the simplest thing to do is to remove 'each other'. Zazaban (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"gay and lesbian couples may have their own biological children"? No shit. They can already do that. I feel like you two (you and Agathman) didnt even read this artice: Sperm cells created from female embryo Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to be nice, okay? I think that both User:Zazaban and I are just trying to come up with a wording that clearly expresses your idea. This is WP:AGF time. I've just tried once again to come up with such a wording; see if you like what I've got now. If not, how about let's try ideas here on the talk page until we can reach a consensus? Agathman (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Your wording is unclear as well. "gay couples and lesbian couples may be able to produce their own biological children". This may mean different things. Anyone, who isnt infertile, can have biological children. Yes my wording didnt read well, but the idea was far more clear. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I really dont like "produce". Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent) How about "In the future, however, gay couples and lesbian couples may be able to have children that combine the partners' genes, thanks to stem cell research."? Agathman (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No. It may mean 2 lesbians combining their genes with a male. Which may also be possible in the future: Babies with three parents ahead Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems to me like the best wording, though I would prefer "stem cell research may allow..." instead of "... thanks to stem cell research". – Steel 20:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then: "In the future, however, stem cell research may allow gay couples and lesbian couples to have children that combine both partners' genes." Using the word "both" ensures the reader will see that only two people are involved, and I got rid of "thanks to." Agathman (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"The physical action of homosexual relations is not capable of sexual reproduction among humans without the use of current assisted reproductive technologies." - Current assisted reproductive technology allows the physical action of homosexual relations (for example, anal sex between men) to produce children? Really? – Steel 20:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL. I think the english language is incapable of explaining this issue with few words. So we will have to do some longer explaining. Let me think. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually instead of gay or lesbian, we can just use same-sex couples. I'll come up with a text, also adding more issues and sources. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Really the whole issue of use of current technology might better be separated out and discussed at greater length. Artificial insemination is one option of women; men might use in vitro fertilization and a surrogate mother. In each case the child shares genetic material with only one member of the couple. Needs sources, etc. For the purpose of introducing the future tech stuff here, How about this:

"Homosexual relations cannot result in sexual reproduction. In the future, however, stem cell research may allow same-sex couples to have children that combine both partners' genes." Agathman (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Is speculation about future genetic possibilities really necessary—or even appropriate—for this article? I would say not; maybe split it off into another article (or, better yet, just wait a while). Whether I'm right or wrong about that, the sentence "Homosexual relations cannot result in sexual reproduction" is certainly unneeded and, actually, rather funny. Lots of things cannot result in sexual reproduction. Examples include everything from asexual reproduction to masturbation to shopping at Kmart. Is anyone likely to be confused on such a basic point of biology? Rivertorch (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you there. My main concern is that, whatever this says, it should say it clearly. I've now spent way too much time on it. I still say that shopping at K-mart can result in sexual reproduction, though.Agathman (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you may have a point there. If the consensus is to keep it, I'll happily put on my copyediting hat (bought during a Blue Light Special) and help with the wording, but I don't want to waste my time if it's going to be deleted anyway. Rivertorch (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I've taken a whack at it to present everythinga bit more in context etc. Hope it helps. -- Banjeboi 15:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It looked better. I'm not clear on why the reproduction part got put back in (the sentence Homosexual sex does not lead to sexual reproduction). It seems gratuitous and pointless. Phoenix, why do you think it's important? Rivertorch (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Should we also delete the definition of homosexuality from the article since it is obvious? Is that "gratuitous and pointless" as well? Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I've restored my clean-up efforts and the "reproduction" content is in the second paragraph:

In January 2008, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that same-sex couples have the right to adopt a child.[89][90] In the U.S., LGB people can legally adopt in all states except for Florida.[91] Same sex couples are not capable of sexual reproduction unless they utilize a surrogate or assisted reproductive technology; this may change with stem cell research.[92]

I think this includes the content without giving it undue weight. The rest of the ection there is all about parenting so is organized as such. The reproduction content is tied to LGBT adoption which would seem to make sense. I see no reason the section would be titled "Reproduction and Parenting" as if we weren't discussing people of a minority who have been historically persecuted and marginalized instead of a species of animal. Is there a compelling not to accept the cleaned-up version? -- Banjeboi 08:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important to stress that while homosexual sex doesnt lead to reproduction, many homosexual people are biological parents. So why did you delete reliably sourced information? Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Defining homosexuality right up front is critical because there has been much confusion and disagreement over it, which has led in the past to unnecessary contention, edit wars, hard feelings, etc. Consensus was reached to use a broad, inclusive definition, and to put it in the lede. So, to answer your question, no—it's not gratuitous and pointless, but neither has it been obvious to many, many well-meaning editors. The question of reproduction, on the other hand, does seem incredibly obvious. I think it's a reasonable assumption that virtually everyone old enough and intelligent enough to be using Wikipedia as a reference work knows that sexual reproduction involves a female and a male, so stating the obvious—that male + male or female + female ≠ reproduction—does seem gratuitous and pointless. I'm not applying those adjectives to disparage your wording; I'm saying that the wording is inappropriate in the context of this article. Different methods of parenting are appropriate to discuss here, but it just doesn't need the disclaimer about "homosexual sex," as you put it above. After all, opposite-sex couples engage in many of the same sex acts that same-sex couples do, but it's hardly reasonable to expect an article on oral sex, for instance, to note that it can't lead to reproduction. Rivertorch (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Oral sex article: "Although a common misconception,[14] oral sex (by means of fellatio) alone cannot result in pregnancy.". And as I said: "I think it is important to stress that while homosexual sex doesnt lead to reproduction, many homosexual people are biological parents. So why did you delete reliably sourced information?" Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be talking past each other. I'm not sure how to explain myself any more clearly, so I'll leave it alone for now. (For the record, I didn't delete any information. I assume you're addressing another editor.) Rivertorch (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We do state that information but we don't overstate it per WP:Undue. And I think we should treat a brief news article about studies that sexually active teens exploring their sexuality are more prone to being parents carefully. The gist of that article, IMHO, was that although being a teen parent was stigmatizing it was still less negative than being considered gay or lesbian. -- Banjeboi 21:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:Undue??!? Dont be ridiculous. Whats the majority view here? That LGB people have 0 kids?? Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As is stated above the section is about parenting not reproduction which seems worthy of minimal inclusion. The most salient point is that LGB people are parenets by a variety of means. Thus we don't lead with although biological unable to produce offspring ..... Instead we give an overview and include each area with due weight. As such you may be inserting details that might be better on the main article about LGBT parenting.

Among other issues, mostly due weight, clarity and MOS I also removed:

“ In British Columbia, Canada, lesbian and bisexual youth has been found to be up to seven times more likely to get pregnant than their heterosexual peers while boys were more likely to cause a pregnancy if they identified as gay or bisexual. A 1981 survey in San Francisco found that homosexuals have only one-fifth as many children as heterosexuals. ”

This seems awfully pointy and the gist of that first source, IMHO, was that although being a teen parent was stigmatizing it was still less negative than being considered gay or lesbian. Wedging in pointy facts would seem to degrade this article but may help the main parenting article. -- Banjeboi 23:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you read the article, while thats one of the reasons, its not the only reason. The point wast about stigma tho, it was about fertility rates and comparison (San Francisco vs BC) Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Malleability

Regarding this edit, which I am reverting:
That a "new line of research" is reportedly beginning is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in this overview article. We really need to stick to established science (i.e., theories or at least well-tested hypotheses), not speculation, however well-meaning and plausible. Rivertorch (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it was a good faith edit and also endorse the reversion. The CNN article appears to show that the study is primarily about lesbian orientation, not all LGBT. Also, the concept of fluid orientation is already covered in Homosexuality#Malleability of sexual orientation, which says: "... For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time" That viewpoint and this reference has not risen to a level of acceptability compared to the mainstream references, and the American Psychiatric Association, that show homosexuality as being fixed. The US Surgeon General has said "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed". Adding another opposing viewpoint sentence would be WP:UNDUE. If additional RS studies can be found that establish a better scientific basis for fluid orientation, by all means lets include them. But only in proportion to their prominence in the scientific literature. — Becksguy (talk) 03:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The article does not contradict Surgeon General and builds up on Kinsey's and APA's (sexuality continuum) research. Please do not revert RS'ed material. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not all reliably-sourced material is appropriate for this (or any) article. The object here, if I'm not mistaken, is to create a tightly-written overview article that is as close to 100% verifiable and free of undue weight as possible. To do that, some research that is less than well-established must be relegated to other, more specific articles. I stand by my decision to revert. Rivertorch (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems like you misunderstood the article just like the guy who added it at first. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can only speak for myself, not for any other editor. I've read the article a second time now, and I don't think there's much to misunderstand; it's not particularly complex in its treatment of the subject. My intial objections to the edit, stated above, still apply—and here's another one: the source is largely a puff piece, long on anecdote and celebrity name-dropping, woefully short on evidence collected from the mainstream of academic inquiry. Having said that, I'll also say I think it makes some interesting claims that, if better sourced, would be quite appropriate for another WP article that delves more deeply into issues of fluidity. Rivertorch (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Health section

I am reverting this edit for the following reasons:

• The higher incidence of HIV and other physical disorders is already mentioned in the previous paragraph. Mentioning it in two consecutive paragraphs raises questions of redundancy, at the very least, and very possibly undue weight.
• Depression, substance abuse, and suicide are already mentioned in the following paragraph. Again, mentioning it in two consecutive paragraphs raises questions of redundancy, at the very least, and very possibly undue weight.
• The three cited references are problematic:

1. The first one, http://www.xtra.ca/BinaryContent/pdf/human%20rights%20complaint.pdf , is highly specific to one country, its authorship is unclear, it is a complaint and not a neutral statement, and, while it lists references, it doesn't make clear their context or how they can be validly interpreted within, let alone beyond, Canada. Ultimately, then, it fails as a reliable source and its relevance is questionable. (As an aside, it also contradicts the reference in yesterday's edit about blood donations, but that's neither here nor there.)
2. The second one, http://www.netassets.co.za/medical/medical.asp?websiteContentItemID=67274 , is a nonworking link and thus cannot be evaluated.
3. The third one, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-347665/The-people-punish-Mr-Blair.html , is only relevant to the topic of this article in the most peripheral way. More importantly, it is an opinion piece, not a news article. It implies that HIV is attributable to "lifestyle choices". Nice. Very neutral, that.

It is possible that some of the material in this latest edit would be salvageable, with proper sourcing, but I would like to reiterate this one more time: as a general overview article, Homosexuality should not delve into unnecessary detail in any one section. Complaints filed against Health Canada by LGB activists? That's almost certainly too much detail for the health section of this article. The danger of subtle POV creep also remains. Rivertorch (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yea, we need more info about aids and stuff, its important. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

लैङ्गिक तथा यौनिक अल्पसन्खक भन्नाले के बुझीन्छ ?

Extended content

Who are Sexual and Gender Minorites ? यौन (Sex): ब्यक्तिको यौन अङ्गको हिसाबले (Anatomically) स्त्रीलिङ्गि (Male), पुरुषलिङ्गि (Female) वा अन्तरलिङ्गि (Intersexual) हुनुसँग सम्बन्धित छ। लिङ्ग र यौन शब्द प्राय जसो एक अर्काको लागी प्रयोग गरिएता पनि इनीहरु एकै अर्थ लाग्ने शब्द भने होइनन्। लिङ्ग (Gender): लिङ्ग भन्ने शब्द कुनै ब्यक्तिको स्त्रीपन (Femininity) वा मर्दपन (Masculinity)लाई लिएर बन्ने सामाजिक ढाँचा (बनावट, Social Construction) हो, यो समय र ठाँऊ अनुसार फरक हुन्छ। यो ढाँचा (बनावट) ब्यक्ति निहित नभई समाजद्धारा सिखाइएको हुन्छ। लिङ्ग र यौन शब्दको एउटै अर्थ लाग्दैन। लैङ्गिक पहिचान (Gender identity): कुनै पनि ब्यक्तिको "महिला (Woman)", "पुरुष (Man)" वा "तेस्रो प्रकृतीको ब्यक्ति (Transgender)" हुने आन्तरिक अनुभुती हो। "लैङ्गिक प्रस्तुती (Gender Expression)" कुनै पनि ब्यक्तिले आफुलाई आफ्नो लैङ्गिक अनुभुती अनुसार समाजमा कसरि ब्यक्त गर्दछ भन्ने सँग सम्बन्धित हुन्छ। "लैङ्गिक पहिचान" र "लैङ्गिक प्रस्तुती" शब्दहरु प्रायजसो तेस्रो प्रकृती (वा तेस्रो लिङ्ग) भन्ने शब्दसँग नजिकवाट सम्बन्धित छन्। यौन अभिमुखिकरण (Sexual Orientation): यसले कुनै पनि ब्यक्तिको यौनिक वा भावनात्मक आकर्षणको दिशा बोध गर्दछ, र त्यो आकर्षण बिपरित लिङ्ग भएको ब्यक्ति प्रति वा समानलिङ्ग भएको ब्यक्ति प्रति वा सबै लिङ्ग प्रति हुन सक्दछ। तेस्रो प्रकृतीको ब्यक्ति (Transgender): यस्तो ब्यक्ति जस्को लैङ्गिक पहिचान (Gender identity), लैङ्गिक प्रस्तुती (Gender Expression) , ब्यक्तित्व अदि समाजमा परम्परागतरुपमा महिला र पुरुषबाट अपेक्षा गरिएको भन्दा फरक हुन्छ। मेटी: पुर्वी नेपाल तिरबाट आएको शब्द, यस्ता पुरुषलिङ्गि (Male) ब्यक्तिहरु लाई इङ्गित गदर्छ जो आफुलाई महिला जस्तै ठान्दछन्। मेटीहरुको बिपरितलिङ्गि, समलिङ्गि वा दुइलिङ्गि पुरुष भन्दा अलग पहिचान हुन्छ र आफुलाई समाजमा महिला जस्तै प्रस्तुत गर्ने गर्दछन्। पारिवारिक तथा सामाजिक दवाबका कारण महिलासँग बिबाह गर्नु परेता पनि मेटीहरुको यौन आकर्षण तथा यौन सम्बँध भने "मर्द" सँगनै हुने गर्दछ। मेटीहरु पनि आफुलाई तेस्रो प्रकृतीको ब्यक्ति ठान्दछन्। सिङ्गारु: मेटीजस्ता ब्यक्तिलाई पश्चिमी पहाडतिर सिङ्गारु भनिन्छ। मारुनी: त्यस्तै केटीको भेषमा नाच्ने पुरुषलिङ्गि ब्यक्तिलाई मारुनी भनिन्छ। मौगिया वा कोथी: मेटीजस्ता ब्यक्तिलाई तराईतिर मौगिया वा कोथी भनिन्छ। फुलुमुलु: मेटीजस्ता ब्यक्तिलाई हिमाली भेगमा फुलुमुलु भनिन्छ। आदि, आदि।।। हिजडा: हिजडा समुदाय नेपालको तराई तथा भारतमा करिब ४००० बर्ष भन्दा बढी पहिलेदेखी रँहदै आएका छन्। हिजडाहरु तेस्रो प्रकृती (जसलाई "पिङ्गला" भनिने शिब-शक्ति रुप, शिबको अर्ध पुरुष तथा अर्ध महिलाको रुप, सम्द्यिन्छन्) भएको कारण आफुलाई पाबित्र वा अलौकिक ठान्दछन्। हिजडा हुन चाहने ब्यक्ति (जो जन्मदा पुरुषलिङ्गि भएर जन्मेको हुन्छ) ले हिजडा समुदायमा आफुलाई सामेल गर्नु पर्छ तथा बिभिन्न नियम तथा अनुशासन (जस्तै महिलाको भेषमा उठबस गर्नु पर्ने, उठेर पिसाव गर्नु नहुने आदि) पालन गर्नु पर्ने हुन्छ। जस्ले यो समुदायको यी नियम तथा अनुशासन हरु सख्त रुपले पालन गर्न सक्छ ती ब्यक्तिहरुले मात्र "निर्वाण" (लिङ्ग काटी पूर्णरुपमा हिजडा हुने प्रकृया) लिन पाउँछन्। यौन अँग परिवर्तित ब्यक्ति (Transsexual): तेस्रो प्रकृतीको ब्यक्ति जस्ले आफ्नो यौन अँग आफ्नो लैङ्गिक पहिचान (Gender identity) अनुसार पुरुष वा महिला बन्नेगरी परिबर्तन गरेका छन्। अन्तरलिङ्गि (Intersexual): यस्ता ब्यक्ति जो जन्मदा नै सारिरीक वा यौन अङ्गको हिसावले सामाजिक अपेक्षा अनुरुप स्त्रीलिङ्गि (Female) वा पुरुषलिङ्गि (Male) छुट्टिदैनन्। ऐतिहासिक तवरले, चिकित्सक समुदायले यसलाई हेर्माफ्रोडाइट्स (hermaphrodites) भन्ने बिल्ला लगाई बच्चाको यौनअङ्ग सच्चाउने सल्यकृया (sex reassignment surgery) गरिदिने चलन कयौँ देशमा छ। तर समकालिन दृश्टिकोण यस्तो जबरजस्ति बच्चाको यौनअङ्ग सच्चाउने सल्यकृया अभ्यास (arbitrary practice of gender reassignment surgery) लाई वलजफती लैङ्गिक पहिचान बनाइदिने र यौनअङ्ग बिगरिदिने भनी चुनौती दिने गरेको छ। किनभने बच्चाको लैङ्गिक पहिचान (Gender identity) पछि कस्तो हुन्छ भनेर अहिले भन्न सकिन्न। दुई आत्मा भएको(Two-spirited): आदिवसीहरुमा केहि ब्यक्तिहरु आफूलाई महिला, पुरुष दुबैको आत्मा भएको मान्दछन् (न की समलिङ्गि, दुइलिङ्गी वा तेस्रो प्रकृतीको ब्यक्ति)। दुइलिङ्गि (Bisexual): यस्तो ब्यक्ति जो सारिरीक तथा भावनात्मक रुपले महिला तथा पुरुष दुबै सित आकर्षित हुन्छ। बिपरितलिङ्गि (Heterosexual): यस्तो ब्यक्ति जो सारिरीक तथा भावनात्मक रुपले आफुभन्दा बिपरितलिङ्ग भएको ब्यक्ति प्रति आकर्षित हुन्छ। समलिङ्गि (Homosexual): यस्तो ब्यक्ति जो सारिरीक तथा भावनात्मक रुपले आफुजस्तै समानलिङ्ग भएको ब्यक्ति प्रति आकर्षित हुन्छ। समलिङ्गी ब्यक्तिलाई अँग्रेजि भषामा "होमोसेक्सुअल" भनिएता पनि "गे" शब्द बढि प्रयोग गरिन्छ भने महिला समलिङ्गिलाई "लेस्वियन" भन्ने चलन पनि छ। गोप्य रहने( Closet): बहिश्कार हुने डरले आफ्नो लैङ्गिक पहिचान (gender identity) वा यौन अभिमुखुकरण (Sexual orientation) आफु कामगर्ने ठाँउ, बिधालय, घर-परिवार वा साथीभाइ बिच लुकाउनु। खुल्ने(Coming out): १) यो समलिङ्गि, दुईलिङ्गि वा तेस्रो प्रकृतीको ब्यक्तिले आफ्नो लैङ्गिक पहिचान (Gender identity) वा यौन अभिमुखिकरण (Sexual orientation) को पत्तो पाउने र त्यसलाई स्वीकार्ने तथा यो तथ्यलाई आफ्नो ब्यक्तिगत तथा सामाजिक जीबनमा उतार्ने प्रकृया हो। २) आफ्नो लैङ्गिक पहिचान (Gender identity) वा यौन अभिमुखुकरण (Sexual orientation) को बारेमा अरु समक्ष गर्वसित खुल्ने प्रकृया हो। समलिङ्गि प्रती घृणा वा डर (Homophobia): पूर्वाग्रह, बिभेद वा नकारात्मक धारणाले ग्रसित भएर उपज हुने समलिङ्गि प्रतीको घृणा वा डर हो। समलिङ्गि प्रती घृणा लाई "सँस्थागत डर, धृणा, पूर्वाग्रह वा नकारात्मक धारणा" भनेर पनि परिभाषित गरिन्छ जसले समलिङ्गिहरुलाई अदृश्यहुन वा लुक्न बाध्य तुल्याँउछ, बिभेदको शिकार बनाउँछ, तीरष्कृत गराँउछ वा अन्यायको शिकार पनि बनाउँछ। बिपरितलिङ्गबाद (Heterosexism): सबै ब्यक्ति बिपरितलिङ्गिनै हुन्छन् भन्ने मानयता राखी यो नै उत्तम तथा माथिल्लो हो भन्नु बिपरितलिङ्गबाद हो। बिपरितलिङ्गबाद प्राय शुक्ष्म रुपमा प्रस्तुत हुने गर्दछ जस्तै गैर-बिपरितलिङ्गि वा तेस्रो प्रकृतीको ब्यक्तिको पहिचान, ब्यबहार, सम्बन्ध तथा समुदायको इन्कारी, अनाबस्यक आलोचना गर्नु बा लञ्छना लगाउनु। भेदखोल्ने(Outing): ब्यक्तिको अनुमतिबिना उसको लैङ्गिक पहिचान (Gender identity) वा यौन अभिमुखुकरण (Sexual orientation) सार्बजनिक गरिदिने काम। यस्तो भेदखोल्नेकाम निकै अनादरपूर्ण र (संभाबित रुपले) खतरा पूर्ण पनि हुन्छ। —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raju Lama (talk • contribs) 03:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the english language wikipedia. Does anyone want to translate this? Zazaban (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Google translation is in the drop box above. And it makes no sense. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 03:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe someone who reads HindiNepali can make some actual sense of it. LadyofShalott 03:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing in the box. Zazaban (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, like I said in my last edit summary, it's actually Nepali, not Hindi.. and unfortunately there seems to be no online translator for Nepali. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone will respond, but I posted a request for help at WikiProject Nepal - figuring it has the highest chance of having people capable of reading the post. LadyofShalott 04:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Safer Sex Boxes

What do the safer sex boxes have to do with homosexuality. wikipedia is not a sexual health clinic, its an encyclopedia