Talk:Biology and sexual orientation

Untitled

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

The same problem, quoting people whose status is not clearly relevant to the subject of this article

The same problem I've seen on another article: quoting people who are not involved directly with research on sexual orientation, but make very broad and bold statements without providing any reference for their claims. I have deleted the same quote by Michael King, who is a professor of psychiatry specialised in the area of primary care, on the topic of sexual orientation. For the same reason I will proceed to delete the quote, because someone who is not an authority in the field should not be quoted making over-arching statements on the state of knowledge in this area of research. What is more, it's important to quote people who are not involved in any politics on the issue of sexual orientation. Now, professor King may be an excellent psychiatrist and a great person, but he did not publish anything that is quoted in the literature on sexual orientation and apparently he is very actively involved in taking political stances using his professional status to defend sexual minority rights. Given this context, please let's try to keep these articles as NPOV as possible and only quote people involved in sexual politics only if they have produced some scientific material relevant for the subject and of real significance. Otherwise, a little bit of research can give any reader the impression that we are editing this article to influence others' opinions using the words of advocates. I think we can do better than that. Thanks. PS - I will now proceed to make the changes I announced earlier on, on the brain-scanning study inacuracy. Aliasflavius (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Brainscan study conclusions misstated

In the "Physiological" section of differences between orientations, there is a statement which is not in line with the referenced study.

“ Three regions of the brain (medial prefrontal cortex, left hippocampus, and right amygdala) are more active in gay men than non-gay men when exposed to sexually arousing material. ”

If you read the study from footnote 56 (the Safron et al. (2007) study), the conclusion is that the group difference was observed only for the amygdala region. What is more, one neuroscientist commented on this study that the (amygdala) difference between groups was so small that perhaps the main finding of this study is that "hetero" and "homo" male brains react similarly to their preferred stimuli. The authors of the study cautioned any interpretation of this study to take into account that the study cannot say if the differences were the result of different levels of arousal and similar processing or similar levels of arousal but different processing. In lay terms, scientists cannot say if people of different orientations use the same brain regions similarly for different sexes but they are more or less aroused by those sexes or because they use the same brain regions in different ways, which leads to arousal in the same regions but for different sexes. Where did the author of this statement get this conclusion from? If no reason, based on the study, is offered I will make the necessary correction soon. Aliasflavius (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Update - I have made the announced modifications. Now the article only refers to one difference in the amygdala region between straight and gay men, observed in brainscans while study participants were watching erotic films. The argument for making this change is based on one of the authors' presentation of the study:

“ For the most part, homosexual and heterosexual men showed very similar patterns of activation (albeit to different erotic stimuli). One possible exception was the amygdala, in which homosexual men showed greater activational differences between preferred and nonpreferred erotic stimuli compared with heterosexual men. However, this difference was not hypothesized a priori, was not large, and was the only group difference found out of many tested. Thus, this finding needs replication."(Reference: Debra A. Hope (editor), What is Sexual Orientation and Do Women Have One? (presentation by J.M. Bailey), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Volume 54 p. 47, Springer Science, 2009.) ”

"By all means, make this article as biased as possible"

The sources you gave for "Gay men have longer penises" need to be seriously reconsidered, as there is no reputable scientific evidence to verify the validity of your claims. Logically, it would be the exact opposite.

Furthermore, "Gay men report..." is not valid, because of course they are going to say they have larger penises. What guy wouldn't?

Where it says "Gay men report..." I don't think that the scientists just asked some gay people "Do you have a larger penis than the average straight man?" and all the test people in the survey said "yes". They probably asked some straight men and some gay men "How large is your penis". Now, assuming each group on average exaggerates equally (which I admit is up for debate, though there is no a priori reason to expect one group to lie more than the other), then the results are reliable. More formally, if the reported average length of a gay man's penis is greater than the reported length of a straight man's, and both figures are liable to the same systematic error, it is likely that the errors will roughly cancel and that the reported difference in size will be quite accurate.

We need to play a game of Smear-the-Queer wikipedia style.

"somewhat confused"

In the pheromones section it refers to the results of Lesbian women as "somewhat confused", but I can not find it in the source. Can somebody please elaborate? Thoughtbox (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I too could not find any source to fit such claim yet I did find an article that states just the opposite.Nikkidimble (talk) 06:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Teenage girls and young women who identify as Lesbian or bisexual are just "going through a phase" and that most of those women will eventually settle down as heterosexual.

The scholarly research on this topic does not provide strong evidence in support of this assumption. On the contrary, the most careful, longitudinal studies - in which researchers keep track of the same women for many years - suggests just the opposite. For example, Professor Lisa Diamond followed a cohort of women for 10 years: she found that over those ten years, these women were more likely to ADOPT the bisexual label than they were to RELINQUISH that label

Please keep Lesbian and Bisexual seperate as they are two seperate identities. I think it's more appropriate to include "some women" rather than all women who are lesbian or bisexual as many Lesbians do not ever become bisexual or adopt a bisexual label. Thanks. -seeker

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)

left-right? liberal-conservative? That is a bit simplistic when many Radical Feminists are closer to conservative Christians than gay researchers like Hirschfeld and LeVay. Even LGBT people don't agree on this, and not all those who plump for nature are log-cabin Republicans. Carpenter - left - nature. Ellis & Freud - far from right, only differed in the extent of the role of nature/nurture. Mish (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2009 (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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.156.9 (talk) 05:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's compelling stuff. All you need then is a gene which attracts either sex to women, and you've got a complete set of homosexuality-relevant genes. Tcaudilllg (talk) 11:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Large Fraternal Birth Order Effect Study Just Released

A new study by Andrew Francis from Emory University found no Fraternal Birth Order Effect. His sample was large, over 10,000 participants. I personally believe in a biological explanation but it looks like this one might not be it. Maybe someone would like to tackle this one. [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duper-Super-1000 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hormones how? Hormones where?

It doesn't take a quantum leap of cognition to accept that hormones created in the fetal body do in fact steer the growth of the rest of the organism. However, there is a big difference between hormones which are produced within the placenta, and hormones which are outside of it and presumably blocked by it. The tone of this article seems to have difficulty with the proposition that fetal hormone need not equal maternal hormone. If it came from the fetus, then obviously it's a matter of fetal DNA producing the hormone, not the mother's. Tcaudilllg (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The words "presumably" and "obviously" are really key here. It is not at all "obvious" that variation in fetal hormone production is due to variation in fetal DNA sequence. Nor it is at all reasonable to assume that maternal hormone fluctuations don't result in variation in fetal exposure. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What does variation have to do with anything? It's simple biology: you have cells which respond to hormones by developing in different ways. The developed cells then produce more hormones which in turn direct the development of other cells. Has it been proven that maternal hormones can in fact cross into the placenta? Or even that they can reach the glands/clusters which are responsible for sexual differentiation? That's what this is really about: does the condition of the mother genuinely determine the development of the child apart from malnutrition? Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hormones can pass through the skin (eg hormone patches), so passing into a fetus that is completely immersed in an hormone filled womb would seem likely. Which isn't the same as true.YobMod 07:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Section Pheromone studies

I'm taking out the following part of the section, because the sources do not provide the stated conclusions:

"Another form of research was done by Dr. Savic. Dr. Savic uses PET scans to see the brain activity while letting people smell different types of pheromones. Savic used two compounds that resemble the male and female sex hormones. The first is 4,16-androstadien-3-one (AND) which is a derivative of testosterone produced in human axillary secretions in higher concentrations in men than in women. The second compound is oestra-1,3,5(10),16-tetraen-3-ol (EST) which is a substance resembling naturally occurring oestrogenes . These are the pheromones that make men and women attracted to each other. When a man smells a woman's pheromone, EST, there is a degree of brain activity. The same happens to women for the pheromone AND. Savic found that gays had the similar brain activity as women when given the whiff of AND, and vice versa for lesbians . Savic's findings imply that sexual orientation is determined prior to exposure to life’s environmental influences. Also, unlike some of the early researchers, Savic's research is less likely to cater to a gay political agenda or bias, as her field was originally epilepsy research. She inadvertently stumbled onto the pheromone sex differences while studying how smells might trigger temporal lobe epilepsy ."

What kind of peer-reviewed journal can salon.com be ? The paper simply finds a difference between brain reactions of homo- and heterosexual humans. There is no way to tell if this is hereditary or learnt later in life, and the original research paper does not state a single word concering this problem. Perhaps someone can reword this into a single sentence about the brain differences, but I personally do not see what the article gains from this, as the relevance is not clear (brain differences are already stated in several other sections). —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMaster17 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Physiologial diffrences

In the old bad days – I think it was during the period 1870 - 1914 – there where claims of gays being more physically feminine and lesbians being more masculine. Yet the list of physiological differences for the very most part deals with differences in the brain. Only two paragraphs deals with differences visible on the outside. One describes a trait that is hard to notice (relative length of the fingers) and the other is the very opposite of the old claims (penis size). Does this mean that the old claims have been disproven? Please note that the homo- and bisexuals I have encountered have usually looked typically male and female. I have only met one homosexual and one bisexual that looked more androgynous. In fact, the most androgynous person I can come up with is a former neighbour who showed no indication of being anything but heterosexual. Once she was nearly hanged up by a gay who mistook her for a man!

2009-06-10 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Contraception

I've read that some researchers had made ties between prenatal hormones and contraception, suggesting that things like the birth control pill could have an impact on male sexual orientation. ADM (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have also heard that. But it seems to me (of course, I'm just a layman in these fields) that this is more barely-researched rumor than serious scientific study. The Squicks (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Evolution: Gays have fewer kids?

Does anyone know of any study proving the essential concept in the evolution section (that homosexuality = less reproduction)? Before the 20th century, it was my understanding that exclusive homosexuality was very rare, and most homosexuals (if they existed) would still marry and reproduce . I would guess that nowadays gay people have fewer kids, but is this true over an evolutionary timescale? I think the section would be greatly improved if the initial claim is referenced, so at least all the arguments against are not tilting at windmills.YobMod 12:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to provide a study that proves the concept you noted. The paragraph is clear that this is a popular argument or assumption (one I've encountered in endless conversations). In essence, those sentences are not claiming this to be true, just claiming it's a meme in society, one that's used by organizations like NARTH. At the minimum, what is necessary is some reference of the claim itself, not a study proving or refuting it. In the interim, we could tag it with {{who}} to suggest the current statement is a little wishy-washy in the way it presents the concept. --Rkitko ^(talk) 21:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be suprised if no sociologist has ever done a statistical study on the number of offsping for different orientations, but maybe the data doesn't exist. Making it clear that this is a non-scientifically studied assumption would certainly help though.YobMod 07:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Clinical cases

It would be interesting if the article would be able to go beyond classical heterosexual/homosexual divisions and try to find out whether certain clinical cases of sexual behavior are biologically determined. For instance, there is a debate among psychiatrists on whether child sexual abuse, rape and incest are biologically determined. If so, it would mean that certain ethnic groups would be more likely to have child abusers in their ranks. There were concerns about Ireland during the priest abuse crisis because so many pedophile priests were ethnically Irish. In that case, one could imagine the scientific use of eugenics in order to ethnically cleanse such ethnic groups from potential genetically pre-conditioned pedophiles. ADM (talk) 05:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This would be off-topic, as paedophilia is not a sexual orientation, it is a paraphilia. J. Michael Bailey has co-written a paper on the ethics of parents terminating a foetus that carries a (hypothetical) gay gene - which would be more on-topic. Mish (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

First, I do not believe there is, in fact, any discussion among psychiatrists (or any other related field) about "whether child sexual abuse, rape and incest are biologically determined." There is evidence (and, therefore, discussion) over whether the paraphilias in general have a biological etiology, however. Second, there is no evidence (and no discussion I am aware of) indicating that the biological aspects of the paraphilias are at all related to any known biological difference among ethnic groups. This is not to say that ethnic differences in sexual behaviours/offenses do not exist, but no one has ever shown that such sexual behavior differences are not better accounted for by more obvious factors, such as different cultures being more and less likely to report behaviours to the authorities and therefore available to official count. I am not aware of any bone fide expert in pedophilia discussing any ethnicity-related eugenics in the way ADM postulates.

— James Cantor (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Conclusion section

This section is ONLY about a 1991 survey and yet it appears to be presented as a conclusion of the studies listed above -- which were pretty much all later than 1991.

Kinda hosed up. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Funniest damn thing I ever read on Wikipedia

This isn't a terribly useful remark of mine, I know, but I just had to tell you guys that this quote is the funniest thing I ever read on wikipedia: "Gay men report, on an average, slightly longer and thicker penises than non-gay men"

I don't mean to argue with it's validity, the sources are probably smarter than me, but if it were true, it would be immensely funnier even. :) 85.145.116.131 (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Inbreeding

No this isn't a troll topic. As many know in European Pole Cats males born to mostly females litters are often homosexual, showing disinterest in females and exhibiting full sexual behavior with males. I've heard it suggested, multiple times, that in such cases homosexuality in the males may serve an evolutionary advantage by decreasing the rate of inbreeding, have any studies been done to this effect? --67.58.84.222 (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion explanation

Explanation for this editation is fully compliant with Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Use up-to-date evidence Putting it back is obviously in contradiction with Wikipedia rules. --Destinero (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

APA is 2007; seems current to me. LeVay is 1996, and I don't see any more current research that contradicts him. Will you please point it out to me? --Dr.enh (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see this talk page for further related discussion. --Dr.enh (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Pediatric Neuroendocrinology: Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation

I find essential the following study and it's conclusion to be mentioned in the article: "The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation." http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Doi=262525 --Destinero (talk) 10:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

physiological

this section needs to reflect that while there are some studies that show a correlation, there are other studies that show there are not, some of which are even listed in that section. the way it is phrased currently is biased. i don't want to change it because i think someone will undo it, how can we fix it so it is neutral? Aisha9152 (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I made some changes to your last edit, so I may be one of the editors that's frustrating you, maybe we can find some consensus. Thanks for opening this up to discussion. My main concern, I think, is this: When I look through the individual studies shown, I see about two dozen physiological attributes that are listed as things that individually have been shown (within a particular study) to correlate to orientation. Reading through the list (and it's a long list, please correct me if I'm wrong), I only see one study that does not find a correlation (the second part of the section on anterior commissure). To make an analogy: It seems to me, and let me know if this makes sense to you, that if I say "Joe and Jim are different, they have different hair, eyes, teeth, feet, and legs." and another person says "Joe and Jim actually have the same legs", that it's still fair to summarize this is "Joe and Jim are different", the vast majority of claimed differences aren't disputed, just the precise list. So, I don't think it's in any way unfair to summarize those dozens of studies as "studies have found many ways in which there seems to be a correlation between orientation and physiology". We can argue whether it's 17 or 18 (I didn't count), but either way, some have found that. Now, if there are more studies that seem to show that there's not a correlation, we should find some reliable sources and add that information, absolutely, and that might change the game. But let's make sure not to give undue weight as per WP:UNDUE. I don't know--are there more studies that really seem to argue against the existence of these correlations? I've only seen the one I noted in the list. other many differences found in other studies--that is, studies that are published in reliable sources, etc? If there's more studies (subject to WP:V, WP:RS, etc.) that aren't being included, let's make sure they gets added. --Joe Decker (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

well the problem is i don't think these sources are reliable either, i mean look at the 6th one. i think just saying "some studies" as the introduction would do a lot to make it sound less authoritative. Aisha9152 (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd certainly be okay with adding "Some" in front of the first sentence of the section, that'd totally work for me. Does that help? (The sixth item, first of two footnotes appears to be from a peer-reviewed scientific journal that's published by Springer-Verlag... *reads more* on the other hand, using 1938-196x data from Kinsey sounds *really* flaky to be due to selection bias. I see your point on that item.) --Joe Decker (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

ok, i will add it. wikipedia is vulnerable to a certain kind of bias because of the kinds of people who usually feel it is worth spending time on it, so i think this is just an example of a larger issue. i'll add some and think about it thanks Aisha9152 (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks--I will be away for several days, but I wanted to say how much I appreciate your approach to this discussion. Thank you! --Joe Decker (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

i think this is also unencyclopedic "These studies provide evidence that" ... it implies an agreement with the study - that they actually provide evidence instead of make claims. i think it should say 'claim' instead of 'provide evidence' but if you have another idea i would like to hear it. really what the studies do is make claims based on evidence - and that is what we are making reference to. Aisha9152 (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I read the word evidence differently than you do it's commonly used in science in a way that... well, to my ears, "study X provides evidence of Y" in a science context could be fairly accurately reworded as "study X consistenst of an experiement whose results support the hypothesis of Y". How would you feel about "Those studies suggest that ...." or something like that? That in the 2nd sentence would connect "Those studies" with the particular studies that do support a correlation, and perhaps "suggests" doesn't sound as absolute as "evidence" to you? Thanks for thinking about this. --Joe Decker (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

i think suggests is better than provides evidence of, but what is wrong with 'claim'? that is least ambiguous to a layman. Aisha9152 (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

to put it another way if you say 'the study provides evidence' i would say no, that is the conclusion not the evidence in the study. if you say 'suggest that', then i can say that it really doesn't suggest it (suggests can mean implies, which still shows that you believe the study), and that the study is badly done. but if you say the study 'claims that', then i cannot argue with it. that's why i think it's the best phrase to use. that is the only way to present this data in a _clear_ and unbiased fashion. Aisha9152 (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that it is "unencyclopedic" to say "These studies provide evidence that". At least in encyclopedias outside of wikipedia it would be quite normal to present scientific evidence as the scientific community views it, and not worry that it "implies an agreement with the study". I would suggest that the aim of summarizing scientific research on a topic ought to be to explain what scientists believe and why they believe it, and presenting what WP:N WP:RS non-scientist sources think rather than attempting to make every sentence reflect all views. I would think it is safe to assume that even wikipedia readers would understand "These studies provide evidence that" to mean that the study authors provides evidence consistent with the hypothesis and they suggest that the hypothesis might be true. Outside of wikipedia, empirical evidence for and against (arbitrary example) Einstein's theory of relativity vs some string theory prediction would not be couched in language implying that the authors of studies make "claims" rather than "actually provide evidence" in an article. Essays on the fallibility of science, don't belong in every encyclopedia article about topics of scientific investigation. For what it is worth, I think that "physiological" is a poor heading for this section, the vast majority of these traits are morphological, not physiological. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

i have to disagree with your claim "safe to assume that even wikipedia readers would understand" - first of all, it is kind of insulting to wikipedia readers, and second of all, obviously this is not how i understood the statement - so it is not safe to assume it at all. this information needs to be shown in a clear way that doesnt rely on understanding the different scientific use of laymans terms. Aisha9152 (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

to put it another way your argument seems to be "it is SUPPOSED to be interprested this way", but what i am asking is why we cant phrase it more clearly so it cannot be misinterpreted by someone with a different background. Aisha9152 (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow the argument that it is "kind of insulting to wikipedia readers" when I suggest that we should present things the way 'real' encyclopedias do under the assumption that wikipedia readers are just as able to understand the material as readers of other encyclopedias. Just so I understand, when you say " 'the study provides evidence' i would say no, that is the conclusion not the evidence in the study" you are saying that we should limit ourselves to presenting the data from the research and refrain from presenting what the scientists think it means? Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

i am saying that we need to make it clear at what times we are presenting the data and at what times we are presenting the scientists' conslusions - all i wanted to do was change 'provide evidence that' to 'claim', because that is what the studies do. they provide evidence, it is up to someone to interpret the evidence into a conclusion, and that is what the study does, but another person can interpret that evidence in another way. Aisha9152 (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Claiming the the moon is made of green cheese is different from providing evidence that the moon is made of green cheese, just like claiming that exposure to Tinky-Winky makes boys become gay and presenting evidence of this are two different things. So when scientists present evidence that, you think wikipedia ought to take a "we report, you decide" stance and not say that the scientists present evidence that... ? Pete.Hurd (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

they are not "presenting evidence that". they are "presenting evidence that they believe/suggests that". there is a big difference between those two. for instance "the moon has holes very similar to those in swiss cheese, so it must also be made of cheese", according to how you are stating we should summarize it, presents evidence that the moon is made of cheese. i dont see that as an accurate summary of what is happening there. Aisha9152 (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

since no one has responded to my last point i am going to guess that you agree or lost interest so i will make the change. thanks for discussing it. Aisha9152 (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Unverifiable source

There is a cited claim on this page that a study by sanders et al. in 1998 replicated the Xq28 genetic link to homosexuality, however, the only paper by sanders in 1998 about this topic I've found information on says that they DID NOT replicate the results. Can someone who has access to this book "Born Gay" please verify that it definitely says they replicated the results? The original paper seems to be unavailable, however, the one that says they did not replicate the results includes Sanders as an author, so it may be worth just deleting that statement altogether because it's kinda clearly untrue. Here's the paper that says it: http://www.springerlink.com/content/m232wur016t3nu37/ 149.157.1.154 (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

According to this technical comment in Science, Sanders et al. 1998 DID replicate Hu et al.'s results: Hamer, 1999. Sanders et al. 1998 is a poster presented at a meeting, so it's not directly available. But you're right, in this later paper Sanders says that that poster did not replicate Hu's results. Apparently Hamer misread or misrepresented Sanders et al.'s poster. In a response to Hamer's comment, Rice et al. say that Sanders' poster didn't agree with Hu. I'm going to take the erroneous claim out of the article. Agathman (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the immediate problem in the article, but now it really needs some cleanup. Is anyone familiar enough with the literature on X linkage of genes related to homosexuality to make that section into a coherent statement? Agathman (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have found the reference to Sanders, A.R. et al 1998 in 'Born Gay'. It is poster presentation 149 at the annual APA conference in Ontario. The reference is on p.51 and does say they replicated Hamer's results, but does not mention Xq28. It says this was a study of 182 families with two or more gay brothers which concludes maternal transmission based on 13% of maternal uncles being gay compared to 6% of paternal uncles. Mish (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like he did not publish those results, and was primarily concerned with work on bipolar and schizophrenia at that time, but returned to this issue, and in a later 2008 paper found no maternal link: http://www.springerlink.com/content/m232wur016t3nu37/ The results of the 1998 paper seem to differ when reported in conservative religious sources. Presumably this is based on whether one regards 13% vs 6% within a small sample as statistically significant or not? Mish (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Genetics and evolution

I have found an interesting science article that may be of great use to this article. It is about the genetics and evolution of homosexuality and the testable predictions made from mathematical models. Someone of expertise may want to take a look and do a bit of research. This could be a great contribution to the article!

• http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/273/1605/3031.full

Andrew Colvin (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

An entry on "sexual orientation" in general or on "homosexuality" in particular?

While the title of this entry refers to "sexual orientation" it is in fact focused almost entirely upon hypothetical causes of homosexuality. Little or no space is devoted to summarizing research into the causes of heterosexuality or bisexuality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.171.42 (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The section called Biological theories of etiology of sexual orientation" seems to be about sexual orientation in general, including heterosexuality. Lousyd (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality undergoing revision

The article Homosexuality is undergoing revision. The revised version is available in the sandbox and the project documentation and coordination is taking place in the Sandbox's talk page.

I would appreciate if people joined in. I'm currently looking towards forming a team for the revision and future maintenance of this article.

Thank you,

Pdorion (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Minor changes

I added a couple new sentences in the paragraph about the Zietsch et al., 2008 paper to include some qualifications about the results of the study from the discussion section of that paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.99.196.55 (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No Source Listed

In the section: Biological differences in gay men and lesbians Physiological

The entry: It has been discovered that the anuses of homosexual men tend to be 68% larger in circumference than those of heterosexual men.

Has no supporting reference 116.232.8.113 (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Exotic Becomes Erotic

In the section on "Exotic Becomes Erotic" the last paragraph seems out of place. It starts with "William Reiner, a psychiatrist and urologist with..." and then talks about gender orientation and a suggestion that sexual orientation is determined at birth. This doesn't sound like a part of the EBE theory, which explicitly maintains that sexual orientation is not determined at birth, but rather in childhood. I propose deleting this paragraph or incorporating it into another section. Lousyd (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Teenage Sexual Orientation

Why is it so hard for people to believe teenagers can identify themself as being Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual or Transgender and are not just confused about their sexuality? Nikkidimble (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Pathology section removed

I removed the pathology as a cause section because it was based on a single non-medical primary source. I dug though the scientific literature, and I could not find much to back it up. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I found this article which very briefly discusses the theory. Apparently it couldn't pass peer review. However it does turn up the next year in Project MUSE (search for Infectious Causation of Disease: An Evolutionary Perspective) which claims to be peer-reviewed, but I don't know if it qualifies as a reliable source. The theory doesn't seem to be very well-followed in the public sphere either, appearing about a decade ago and not having much discussion since. If nobody wants to reinstate this content, I suggest we remove the redirect under Pathogenic Theory of Homosexuality. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 05:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There are a few articles in the serious popular press about a decade ago. The idea is sometimes promoted in anti-gay circles. The Infectious Causation of Disease: An Evolutionary Perspective is the only article that might have been peer-reviewed, but more often symposium articles are accepted as is without peer-review. But even then, a concept put forward more than 10 years ago without any follow up is not notable in itself. We are not publishing every obsolete idea for many many topics, so I do not see a reason to add this topic. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Bearman and Bruckner

Not in general, but specifically how they're used in this edit. I never remove content without a good reason so here are my explanations:

The content gives undue weight. This criticism has nothing to do with the credentials of Bearman and Bruckner. There are no direct quotes elsewhere in the article, so any added we would expect to be representative of general scientific consensus. This is not the case; general consensus has not yet ruled out uterine hormone influence or evolutionary theories. As evidenced by the article itself the figures of 6.7% and 5.3% are in contest with a number of other studies; they are just one drop in the ocean, so to speak.

The content is out of place. At this point in the article we have not mentioned uterine hormones or the birth order effect. The former is not explained in depth and the latter is only given a passing mention in the article, so it out of place to be providing technical criticism without providing our readers the means to understand what is being criticized. Placing a statement renouncing the theories before they are ever mentioned is a clear sign of a non-objective POV.

Lastly, the figures themselves are wrong. I suspect You're referring to the paper's figures of 7.7% for male and 5.3% for female monozygotic twins, which then are incomplete without describing results from the other groups. Lastly calling this quote a "conclusion" is slightly misleading when it is an introductory statement, and does not necessarily provide the objective overview that a conclusion should.

Thanks for your time and concern. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 21:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Based on your comment, may I then suggest that we do not do a direct quote but instead paraphrase what they said because other points in the paragraph say this: Bailey and Pillard (1991) in a study of gay twins found that 52% of monozygotic (MZ) brothers and 22% of the dizygotic (DZ) twins were concordant for homosexuality.

As you can see this is a highly dated study (1991) which is given 28 words, but the Bearman and Bruckner's study is 2002. But they are only quoted to provide support to other positions other than their most important position. Historyprofrd (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with the study's findings being presented in a similar way to other studies listed. If you want to represent their other conclusions, my request is that they be given where topically useful, for example put their statement about birth order effects under (and, because it's criticism, at the end of) the section Birth order. Thanks for your cooperation. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 04:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I have done the summary and used 7.7 as you suggested. I found this article in the net: http://www.ivpress.com/title/ata/3429-tablea1.pdf / and this http://www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch10.pdf

Hope that is ok now. Historyprofrd (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Lede improvement

I reverted the lede to the following to accommodate Bearman and Bruckman's prestigious study:

Biology and sexual orientation is the subject of research into the role of biology in the development of human sexual orientation. No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, but various studies point to different, even conflicting positions, such as no genetic influence,[1] or a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences,[2] with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment

The former phrasing sounds like a violation of NOR and ignores Bearman and Bruckman.

Somebody, perhaps inadvertently, reverted my edit without due discussion. Historyprofrd (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not necessarily in defense of the previous wording, but your new wording seems potentially problematic on three counts:

• making a single study—however "prestigious"—the very first ref in the article, and basing the lede's wording on it, may constitute undue weight;
• singling out one position (no genetic influence) for mention might not be the most neutral wording;
• the conjunction "but" suggests that the rest of the sentence will stand in contrast with the first clause, which it really doesn't.

The article isn't Research into biology and sexual orientation; it's just Biology and sexual orientation. As such, it may well benefit by beginning with a very general overview (e.g., statements that the AAP journal citation will support) before singling out any one study. I could be wrong. (I have neither the time nor the inclination to involve myself deeply in the article at present, so please take the above as just a "fwiw" comment.) Rivertorch (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is a violation of WP:NOR. Did you mean NPOV? Regardless, I don't think Bearman & Brückman is very prestigious. It's now 10 years old and newer studies have found a mix of genetic and non-shared environmental influences. Bearman & Brückman were also criticized for their study, as among sociologists (note that they are not biologists) a "constructionist" view would support their conclusion. Bearman & Brückman found data similar to that of the Långström study, but while Långström concludes that both genetic and environmental influences are significant, Bearman & Brückman throw out all biological explanations in favor of a pure constructionist sociological explanation. The salient point here is that Bearman & Brückman is not very representative of recent twin studies and should not be presented in the lede as WP:UNDUE weight would be put upon it. Rkitko ^(talk) 15:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.

To Rivertorch: (1) we can move it to second or third, (2) as it is the present wording is given a ref to an article on Sexual Orientation and Adolescents which does not mention the supposed "general acceptance by scientists". The present wording contradicts the fact that there are important scientists who differ from the combination theory it gives, thus nullifying the general acceptance itself. (3) yes OK, we can remove the conjunction but.

To Rkitko, You are right that it is about NPOV because based on what I said above, the present wording of the lede gives undue weight to the "combination theory". Because it gives zero weight to a significant theory from scientists of Columbia and Yale and which the study of Bailey, Dunne and Martin (2000) somehow supports because of the 20% concordance in the male identical twins and 24% concordance for the female identical twins that they found. But it is also a violation of NOR, based on what I said in (2) to Rivertorch.

I think going by the suggestions of Rivertorch will help, so am proceeding to do them now. Historyprofrd (talk) 07:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand your questioning of the "general acceptance" wording, although I'm not sure that the existence of "important scientists who differ" negates the possibility of that a rough consensus may reasonably be claimed. In various fields, there are notable researchers whose published findings go against the grain. Those do need to be reported in our articles, but care should be taken to ensure that minority views are identified as such and not given equal prominence. I'm speaking in very general terms here, and probably not saying anything you don't already know. In any case, I consider the wording much improved now. Rivertorch (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Good to hear of your support, Rivertorch.

In general, since we are dealing with an ideologically charged issue here, I'd say that we ensure that any refs here are based on sources generally untainted by any ideological prejudice and have not been accused by reliable sources of having ideological motives. Historyprofrd (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Failing link

The link in LeVay S (August 1991). "A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men" (PDF), which is source nr 31, doesn't link to the right page. Highollow (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the dead link, which probably was to an unauthorized copy of the entire report. The abstract remains linked. Rivertorch (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Causes of sexual orientation

Hey, everyone. Refer to the Talk:Sexual orientation#Causes of sexual orientation discussion for why I reverted these edits that were made to the lead. I started the discussion at the Sexual orientation talk page to keep the discussion, which concerns two other articles, in one place. Flyer22 (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)