Template talk:Sexual orientation

RfC: are "zoosexuality," "autosexuality," and "pomosexuality" orientations?

Please see proposal sections below

Proposed edit

Sexual orientation in human sexuality
Sexual Orientations labels
hetero - homo continuum
Bisexual · Heterosexual · Homosexual Asexual · Autosexual · Pansexual · Pedosexual · Pomosexual · Transexual · Zoosexual
Paraphilia versus Sexual Orientation Debate
Paraphilias · Pedophilia
Gender-based alternative concepts
Non-westernized concepts of male sexuality · Third sex · Two-Spirit
Study
Biology · Demographics · Kinsey scale · Klein Grid
Related Portals
LGBT Portal · Sexuality Portal
Further Reading
additional reading can go here

The draft edit to the right, which can be viewed here, is the proposed version by Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield. I would like to know everyones opinion.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• I support and approve of the eddtion proposed by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield. It is a great inprovement from the current eddtion that biasly says what falls under a "sexual orientation" and a "sexual identity".--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Go on then ... I support and approve of the eddtion :) I guess non-heterosexual has to be in the top section, for completeness. There are a number of reasons why this in an improvement, one being, that the Paraphilias are not 'Sexual IDs', by any measure. Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So where the gray line is, you want it to be a subsection that says "non-heterosexual labels"--Cooljuno411 (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No, just like it is in the existing version, as it points to an article. Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, strongly. This version is filled with original research that goes well beyond the current understanding of sexual orientation, and draws unfortunate and problematic associations between homosexuality and paraphilias, which is both incorrect and insulting. --Ludwigs2 01:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, let us be very clear why that first grey line is there. This being, that, the LGB 'community' wishes to believe that their abnormality is somehow more normal than other's abnormalities, and we would not wish to upset them. They have the grey line ... that should be more than enough for them, until they wake up and smell the coffee. There are gay, straight and bi paedophiles, or, to put it another way, there are paedophiles who are gay, straight or bi ... take your pick. The sources for 'The Debate' section have already been provided and they are consistent, scientific and totally credible. Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No, your just saying false statements to support your arguement, i don't see anything that would "draws unfortunate and problematic associations between homosexuality and paraphilias". And to my knowledge a sexual orientation is "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions", so where do you get off saying that the edition "goes well beyond the current understanding of sexual orientation". And if you can clearly see it says "sexual orientation labels", sorry to break it to you, but not everyone can be conveiniantly molded to fit into on of the three orintations that you claims to be the only true orientations. Your desired opinions denies "sexual orientation labels" that are clearly in use. You original research claim is opinion, not fact. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What has emerged, as it needed to, is a pretty clean division, between the psychological terminology regime and the psychiatric terminology regime. The conflict and contrasts, between these two areas of study, are ones which they are grappling with, in many areas, presently. Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So, Nigel, you are of the opinion that homosexuality is abnormal, a form of paraphilia, and you wish to make sure that is clear in this template. ok. now, go to an article page on the topic, get that included as a major view about homosexuality, and then we can revisit the issue here on the template. until then, no.

Not opinion at all. Yes, of course homosexuality is abnormal ... statistically and in social/evolutionary biological terms (also, legally in many areas of the world). It is not a Paraphilia (although, it was, of course), for the reasons I have given above. Just as there will be no paraphilias, in time. There is nothing wrong with being abnormal. Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

cooljuno - I say that because the current and conventional use of 'sexual orientation' refers to gender attractions in adult humans. there is nothing in the literature which suggests it goes beyond that. again, if you don't understand why original research can't go on wikipedia, ask. I'm happy to explain. --Ludwigs2 02:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The APA definition fails. You can see the sources I have provided? Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Ludwig2, see that red font on the template that says "Paraphilia versus Sexual Orientation Debate", why don't you feel free to click it and finish all your ranting there. There has already been many references provided to you, and all you can say is "original research", so feel free to start taking action and create the article that debates all your views, but remember now, wikpedia is an neutral place, so don't think your one reference rains supreme over others...--Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

sorry guys, this isn't going to work. I don't need to defend the current and conventional understanding of the term, even if the current and conventional understanding (in your view) fails. Wikipedia is not the correct place to debate whether the APA or any other professional organization got it right. wikipedia only reports what the conventional understanding is, and if there is an ongoing dispute about the conventional understanding in professional circles, wikipedia reports all major sides in the dispute. this leaves you two having to face the following facts:

1. the current understanding in reliable sources is that the term 'sexual orientation' deals with LGB issues, nothing more
2. there is no significant debate in reliable sources about the meaning of the term 'sexual orientation'
3. templates are only suited for summary descriptions of completely conventional viewpoints; there is no room to debate alternate opinions.

it's clear to me that you are focussing on the template because you feel you can propagandize better with a template. tough. go to article pages, make yourselves heard over there, and if you can sway the opinion on articles then we can talk about changing things here. --Ludwigs2 03:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, as you are a dark horse ... you are the final arbiter of the change are you? If you are, I will waste no more time posting, here. You, clearly, have not read that many articles, in detail on this topic, as all the issues you seem to have personal difficulties with, are easily handled within them (and have been, if you check a few, including the challenge to your defunct definition). Yours. Nigel.92.237.161.59 (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just curious why keep quoting the APA when they clearly say "However, some people may use different [sexual orientation] labels or none at all". Your trying to use a reference to that clearly contradicts your opinion. And i am just wondering, where was your original reference for your "sexual orientation" and "sexual identity" listing?, because if i do recall, the current edit, with separate categories you biasly selected yourself, is a result of your own personal opinion. And i am just curious to know, what would YOU call things like autosexuality, asexuality, pansexuality, etc. And i want to hear something other than "original research". Because i personally like to refer to them as "sexual orientation labels", what they are listed as in the template.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 03:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I should also like to know, what would a man 'have', if they were sexually-attracted to prepubescent children, but did not qualify under the criteria of being a paedophile? Do you really think, that his psychiatrists would not say, that he had a sexual orientation, which had not developed into a paraphilia, or would they leave him in some, undefined, limbo land of sexuality? I know, I know, not your interest … but it would for be for readers and contributors and that is why the change is essential. Yours. Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 03:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

... and, possibly, finally, ‘Sexual Orientation’ replaced ‘Sexual Preference’, as the more acceptable, PC term (again, the LGBers doing their stuff). Now, Google for ‘Sexual Preference’ and ‘Paedophilia’ and see how many papers you get. Now, mentally, substitute the word ‘Preference’ with ‘Orientation’. I trust you are bright enough to see my point. Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 03:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC).

CJ. the phrase "However, some people may use different [sexual orientation] labels or none at all" is not a central position in the paper, but merely a something to accommodate different language that people might use to talk about LGB issues. it talks about labels - that means they are worried about differing language, not trying to introduce a new or broader conception.

nigel. what specific criteria (aside from being attracted to pre-pubescent children) do you have for pedophilia? and if there are this many articles, why are you arguing with me rather than citing them? --Ludwigs2 04:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The DSM criteria are clear. It is very possible to be sexually-attracted to prepubescent children and not be a paedophile. I am not arguing with you, I am informing you. The reason why I am not commenting on other articles, is that few people understand the detailed facts of this issue, and I do not have the time (presently) to educate hundreds of the misinformed and biased (actually, many of articles do reflect my position, but you would need to read them to know that). The main issue which underlies all the misinformation, confusion, prejudicial socio-politics and downright falsehoods, is that of Sexual Orientation. By correcting this article, this reduces the foundations of sand and gives a stronger base for correcting the scientific, logical and informational deficiencies in other articles. Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

well, I thank you for informing me. I assume that the DSM IV is distinguishing between Pedophilia as a legal category (which behavior is subject to criminal prosecution), and an attraction toward children that has not yet been acted on (and thus is not subject to criminal prosecution). I sincerely doubt that they list 'attraction toward children' as a 'sexual orientation' (since that would contradict other sections of the DSM IV), but I'm willing to be informed further... --Ludwigs2 20:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Download and read the Moser piece, quoted above. Then you will begin to understand why the APA should not even be including sexuality in any of its documents. Incidentally, committing a criminal act is not a psychiatric condition. Of course, buggery was, for the LGB 'community' ... it now is not (although not everywhere). The APA cannot, at this time, openly state that their paraphilias are actually only Sexual Orientations, for political reasons, which have been described, in sources above. This position stems, simply and illegitimately, from the fact that they should not have sexuality (or criminal actions) in their documentation. Sexuality is not a mental disorder. It is not in their ambit, it is an artifact from positivistic history. That is where the problem originates.

"In our society, to have a pedophilic sexual orientation can create both psychological burdens and impairments. Thus, it seems reasonable to view pedophilia as a disorder. In doing so, perhaps we can learn more about how to prevent it. In addition, perhaps we can lighten that burden by finding ways to help such persons be better able to resist acting upon unacceptable cravings. One way of doing so may be through treatments that can pharmacologically suppress the intensity of sexual appetite."

Peer commentaries on Green (2002) and Schmidt (2002), Pedophilia: When Is a Difference a Disorder?, Fred S. Berlin, M.D., Ph.D., National Institute for the Study, Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Trauma, 104 E. Biddle St., Baltimore, Maryland 21202 (e-mail: berlinf@aol.com), Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 31, 2002. Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. For the same reasons that have been discussed previously, and repeatedly. Banjeboi 21:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
• I support this version, it is positive for every person involved.--ALEKS1013 (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal #1

Started a new topic for my earlier proposal, and whipped up a visual to boot. The important facet of this draft is that the controversial topics (zoosexuality, paraphilias) have been replaced by a single link (in red) to an article on "Alternative perspectives on sexual orientation" which discusses emerging divergent perspectives on what constitutes sexual orientation and the ongoing debate about this. Having no direct specific mention of these topics on this template keeps it from inciting controversy on pages where it is included, yet the new article provides access to this content, but with context and a "softer frame" that hopefully will be less controversial.

I would love it if we could treat this like an RfC, and keep comments brief and to the point. Support or Oppose, and why, or Comment. The lengthy discussions are starting to make my head spin and make this conversation impenetrable for someone new to the debate. Steve Carlson^Talk 06:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete my factually-correct comments. If anyone cannot cope with the details and, yes, that includes you, do not contribute until 'you' are able to do so. Yours. Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 07:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, it was not Steve who deleted my comment - my apologies to Steve if it appears so. Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, your version biasly denies autosexual, pomosexual, etc as sexual orientation labels. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

*Support, this is cleaner, and includes everything it should while having a link to the rest. --Alynna (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, your version biasly denies autosexual, pomosexual, etc as sexual orientation labels. It also, maliciously, ignores the existing published research, both relating to the actual phrase Sexual Orientation, and its proxy, Sexual Preference. It also provides undue 'support' to the mainstream abnormalities, over others. Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support, with the caveat that 'non-heterosexual' and 'pansexual' are non-typical usages, and a bit redundant with with the other categories. --Ludwigs2 19:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support, as is, pansexual is pretty mainstream so I have no issue including that. Non-heterosexual is less mainstream but both seem fine and I respectfully disagree they are "redundant". We could, however, save that discussion once the current issue has calmed. Banjeboi 21:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then if "non-heterosexual" is to be included, i want to see the inclusion of "pomosexual", because i am pretty sure if you do a google search you are going to find more pages on pomosexuality then non-heterosexual, which i remind you, is a much newer addition to wikipedia then pomosexuality. And i personally say "how dare you" to deny someone the same equality of the title of a "sexual orientation" . You are making people second class citizens by clearly saying their sexual orientations labels aren't sexual orientations but "sexual identities". And i just want to quote something called "separate but equal is NOT equal" so i don't see how anyone on this talk page gets off denying people the same equal access to the title as everyone else. Like the edit above, it says "sexual orientation LABELS", as in what people clearly label themselves, i don't know where you or anyone get at denying them the right to label their own sexual orientation, and why you people find such and issue with "sexual orientation LABEL", other than personal bias and disapproval. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You have made your perspective very clear. Let's see what other people have to say, and if there is enough opposition, I will make another proposal with auto- and pomo-. Steve Carlson^Talk 23:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The hetero-homo continuum should be clearly distinguished.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Moving my support vote to #5. Banjeboi 23:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Generally support (I believe my comments at length, above, are justification enough). If it were up to me, I'd just as soon omit Non-heterosexual, at least from the top of the frame, but I'd rather not get in the way of progress while I'm at it. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal #2

In an attempt to accommodate the objections from the above proposal, here is a new version. If you support this version and voted Support for the previous proposal, please strike out your first vote and comment so you only vote in favor of one version. Again, please limit your comments to Support, Oppose or Comment, and a brief and to-the-point comment. Thank you! Steve Carlson^Talk 01:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I would be okay with this, if other people like it. Putting the hetero-homo continuum on as a regular link and not a section header is an acceptable compromise. I don't think "pomosexual" belongs here, as pomosexual people explicitly don't identify with sexual orientation, but if it will make people stop screaming at each other, than whatever. Perhaps things that not orientations (the continuum, non-heterosexual, pomosexual) could go in another section? --Alynna (talk) 04:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

What if we moved non-heterosexual to the "Research and Theory" section, since it's an umbrella term used in academic circles and not an orientation, do the same with the continuum, since it's also theoretical and not an orientation in and of itself, and leave pomo where it is, since it is a way that a person can conceptualize their sexual identity, even if it is a rejection of mainstream labels? Steve Carlson^Talk 05:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Whose 'mainstream' ... that of one portion of the USA? I have not seen Foucault mentioned once, here. Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 07:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds good. --Alynna (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. too many things that are not viewed as orientations are added to the list, and this version will just foster confusion about the differences between orientations and identities. --Ludwigs2 22:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unlikely this will gain widespread support but just to be clear I feel this is going in the wrong direction adding items that are seen as contentious. Banjeboi 01:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support: does not bialy pick and choice sexual orientations, allows all the fair right to be on the template.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal #3

And a third proposal based on Alynna's feedback on version 2. Please vote Support for only one of these! Steve Carlson^Talk 05:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good to me. --Alynna (talk) 06:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose For all the (apparently ignored) reasons provided. Where are Pansexual · Pomosexual · Autosexual in the (albeit irrelevant) APA definition? The answer is simple; the main title becomes Sexual Orientation/Preference [Labels] [I can go with, for sure, because labelling is all we are talking about, here] and all the false boundaries, being maintained by the bigots, collapse. For now, I am willing to support 'my' grey-lined version, above, so as to assist the LGB 'community' and others, during their uncomfortable transition. Yours. Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

All the previous proposals have explicit mentions of paraphilias and zoosexuality, which is what we're trying to address by moving them to Alternative perspectives on sexual orientation. If you want to make a new proposal that incorporates this idea, feel free, I'm only trying to facilitate this discussion a little. I would be happy to help you start a new draft in your user space. Steve Carlson^Talk 07:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate that and I am willing to compromise, as stated, and I have made my input on structure (although I would now like the title to be Sexual Orientation/Preference [Labels] -'Labels' debatable). Pedosexual/Zoosexual and Pedophilia/Zoophilia are not the same things. Being Pedosexual or even 'having Pedophilia' is no different, from being homosexual ... scientifically (it's in the brain and not of one's volition), legally (they are 'not illegal') or semantically (see this thread). If anyone doubts this, then they do not understand this issue, and they have little business contributing to edits. 'You' are conscientiously trying to make them different, by placing them in some low-level, second-class citizen, theoretical category. Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Nigel, I understand your perspective. We are arguing about socially constructed labels and caetegories. But socially constructed as they are, they are nonetheless very real and emotionally laden. "Sexual orientation" is a term that is highly associated with the LGBT community, which is working very hard to achieve understanding and parity against heterosexism. Can you understand that people might not want this word associated with acts/beliefs that are considered illegal (conflating pedophilia with child molestation) or morally wrong according to many religious beliefs? Whether or not they are correct to judge, it is these beliefs that inform the social construction of these labels and categories that we're arguing about. So until the major prevailing attitude shifts, this systemic bias is reality, and this template's role is to represent that social construction. The overwhelming majority of the literature contradicts your position, which of course may reflect systemic bias, but it still makes the perspective you advocate a fringe perspective. Thinking about it, Wikipedia policy actually encourages that its content reflects the systemic bias of the people and cultures that contribute to it, via WP:RS, which introduces the systemic bias of mainstream media, academians and publishers. So it's admittedly biased, but wikipedia is not the platform for advocating that sort of change. So while it may seem like I am "conscientiously trying to make them different", what I am actually trying to do is use WP:WEIGHT to guide us towards a resolution. Steve Carlson^Talk 09:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Do I care if I offend 'them' when I tell 'them' that (most of 'them') have one head, two arms and two legs? Of course not, because it is the verifiable truth. What if I conflate being homosexual with gay rape? Are you suggesting that, worldwide, being LGB is not religiously immoral? Can you see these fallacious positions? It's time to smell the coffee, again. Wikipaedia is 'here' to reflect verifiability, not to perpetuate social constructions or prejudices. If this is not true, it is a weakness of the Wiki (which I have already alluded to). I will say again ... can you not see the legitimate sources I have provided? ... and the fact; Sexual Orientation = Sexual Preference, so I have all that literature behind 'me', as well. This means "The overwhelming majority of the literature contradicts your position?" is, in fact, a falsehood. Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 09:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I have seen your references, but there are thousands of others that are still accepted by the academic community that do not discuss these topics as part of sexual orientation. Again, WP:WEIGHT. Steve Carlson^Talk 09:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me be very clear. I do not really care about any structure of this wiki. I know the lunatics are running the asylum ;) I know the lobbyists, the powerful and those with vested interests are in the ascension (perhaps they always are). I am here, to offer a verifiable perspective, which is no more fringe than any other (quite the opposite, in the case of MAAs), which people simply ignore, because it serves their purpose, or they are at their level of understanding. This is the problem with the Post-Modern era, however, I still have to survive in it and try to change it. So, I withdraw any support or opposition. Do what you will ... the day knowledge becomes a democracy, is the day, when .... well, we have a PM era. I have said my piece (thank you all) and will discuss issues, when I see fit. Yours, Nigel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 09:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, you did not carry out the literature task I set 'you':

"... and, possibly, finally, ‘Sexual Orientation’ replaced ‘Sexual Preference’, as the more acceptable, PC term (again, the LGBers doing their stuff). Now, Google for ‘Sexual Preference’ and ‘Paedophilia’ and see how many papers you get. Now, mentally, substitute the word ‘Preference’ with ‘Orientation’. I trust you are bright enough to see my point." Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 10:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

And yes, it is a weakness of the wiki model. Steve Carlson^Talk 09:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose For the same reasons covered previously. Pomosexual and Autosexual are not on an equal footing with homosexuality or heterosexuality by a long shot. Heterosexual-homosexual continuum was created three weeks ago; likely as a direct result of these discussions. Although possibly a worthy candidate after improving it needs a fair amount of work to allow issues to be sorted out and NPOV concerns to be addressed. For the same reasons I wouldn't want to see questioning or bi-curious even though they are also related. gynephilia and androphilia is another example of an article that's related to this but the article itself needs more work to justify it being held in the same regard as the rest. Banjeboi 09:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I see what you are saying (although you do not actually know if they are or not, because they are all inconsistently-defined labels), knowledge and verifiability are not some form of stamp/card-collecting exercise, requiring 'equal footing'. Sexual Orientation/Preference is sexual attraction to the object (and I prefer only physiologic, but that's just the positivist in me), and not one of Sexual ID (i.e. gender). Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the fact that an article isn't up to snuff is reason to exclude it from the template - having it on the template may actually help attract the attention of editors who can help. Steve Carlson^Talk 09:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hell yeah, why is 'Snuff' not on the list? ;););). Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 10:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally I would have opposed non-heterosexual before it was rewritten and reliably sourced; now everyone can look at the article and get a fairly good idea of what the term is about and how it's used, etc. The problem with most of the other articles is not that they are non-notable but that the articles themselves need so much more that we remain in trenched battle with fairly reasonable questions of what is this?, is it notable? and if so how? If pomosexual were better written it would be evident to all that it's a neologism that's notable enough but just barely. The issue, IMHO, is scope; an old version of alternative sexuality has a starting list of what could be endless debates. My hunch is we should err on the conservative side to stop the edit-warring altogether. Work on improving articles then see which ones seem stable, neutral and reliably sourced enough so adding them to the template remains a civil and productive process. Banjeboi 10:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support, loosely,, not my preference, doesn't deny pomosexual and autosexual but does deny other. A step in the right direction but not all the way there. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal #4 withdrawn

personally, I'd rather see something like this: User:Ludwigs2/:sandbox

it separates out the conventional usage from non-standard usages, without leaving out anything relevent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs)

• Oppose. Appreciate the effort but categorizing as "standard" and "alternative", for starters, would seem to inflame problems. Alsi I think we'd be better to leave off the contentious items and sort them out bit by bit as there doesn't seems to be widespread support. Frankly, the voracity of debate and volume has repelled many of those who have previously weighed in. Extra bold changes should likely be shelved for thoughtful, constructive and more widely accepted ones. Banjeboi 00:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The designation of "standard", with the "non-standard" ones halfway down the template, has POV problems. I wouldn't mind having homo, hetero, and bi first in the list of orientations at the top, but they shouldn't be the only ones up there. At a minimum, "pansexual", which is just as much about gender as "bisexual" is, should be in the same section as the other gender-based orientations. Also, "asexual" is noncontroversial and should be in the main section. --Alynna (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • understandable, and I thought that might be a problem; I'll go ahead and withdraw this as a proposal. I was just looking for a way to distinguish the conventional categories from the neologisms. the voracity of the debate (as Banje put it) is a problem though... is there any way to convince these 'repelled' to come back and weigh in on the various proposals? it would be nice to get supports and opposes from people who have recently been quiet on the issue; that might offset some of the more personal comments that have been flying around. --Ludwigs2 00:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I think once the RfC ends - which I believe is 30 days long - so a few days from now, we can archive major chunks of the talk page to help clean it up. That will help with current volume. Nigel seems to be a bit of a newby but their postings have progressed to more of a constructive format so that dialog has also helped make conversation more fluid. My hunch is all but the most conservative proposals will fail to gain widespread support and even Steve Carlson's proposal has one major problem - the article isn't written yet so we can't really say include it until we can see it to ensure it comes close to being acceptable. Based on wisdom and the state of the other articles that I've previously mentioned this is a hurdle indeed. I very much admire Cooljuno411's passion for these subjects but as a word of friendly advice from my experience at AfD we want to avoid starting a fork-ish article then see either it or pomosexual et al targeted for deletion or a merge. Steve Carlson, I think, has a good concept of directing readers to a link where the articles can be found category:sexual orientation might be an option. All the more problematic articles are listed without weight or POV - it's simply a category list. It includes other gems previously left uncovered in these discussions like polysexuality, monosexuality and, possibly my favorite gay bomb. Instead of creating "Alternative perspectives on sexual orientation", which I think will cause more problems as mentioned above, would switching out for this category link seem to be an elegant solution? Banjeboi 01:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
      • hmm. assuming I understand what you're suggesting, I'll edit the withdrawn template to match - is this what you meant? --Ludwigs2 23:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are referring to my 'personal comments', then please do me the good favour of naming me, so that I may respond to you. They are 'repelled', because 'I' am, quite simply, correct. Now, the question is, why are ‘you’ still here selling the same tosh? The reason this situation is still not resolved, is that 'you’ are arguing from incorrect foundations and 'your' fallacies and prejudices have been exposed, and ‘you’ do not know what to do. What do you think the true, evidence-based intellectual does, in these circumstances? Keeps flogging that dead horse? - flog away. Ironically, your proposal is not far from being acceptable (if I was stating a position), but, once again, your prejudice makes it painfully-difficult for you to conceive the other widespread sexualities (now removed) in their rightful category. Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Nigel, first off please try to post your comments after others so they remain in chronological order, this helps others understand context as well as who is stating what. I think it's a mistake to presume exactly why editors do or don't something so let's just agree that there are fewer people participating at the moment and hope that we can sort out some consensus that also abides by the spirits of what they had stated as concerns. Banjeboi 19:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Noted TY. I am merely commenting. I opted out of consensus, earlier. Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I will now cease from commenting, until after the template is finalised. Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Nigel, I wasn't referring to you particularly; no offense. that comment was just a recognition of the heated nature of this debate, and the fact that there are only a handful of vocal participants in the discussion. more opinons are always a good thing. --Ludwigs2 23:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality and bisexuality in animals

Once the above issues have been settled I'd like to see homosexuality and bisexuality in animals re-added, possibly under the "Study/research" section. Banjeboi 10:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

In "Sexual orientation/ in human sexuality"? Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The article covers why the subject is studied - that is can we infer anything about the naturalness of non-heterosexuality in animals and are there implications for us human animals. It also covers heteronormative bias in research which also would seem relevant. Again, this could wait until the above debates have been sorted out. Banjeboi 00:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a reasonable thing to have in the study/research section. --Alynna (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Does it? No matter ... PM tosh once again. Everything animals (human and non) do is 'natural', for we are part of 'Nature', not divorced from it. I will not bother trying to illustrate the ridiculous nature of 'your' other PM concepts. No offence to you, intellectually, ‘you’ are just like a child with a semi-automatic pistol, fully-loaded. There is a lot of it about and is due to poor education and vested interests. I will take the 'newbie’ comment, above, as being a literal statement on my presence here and no more than that. Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I find your comments quite offensive and encourage you to strike them out. That article speaks of exactly what you refer - the naturalness of their sexual expression and how it is seen in research and mainstream cultures. Banjeboi 19:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Offense is part of learning, progress and the pursuit of knowledge. It is also explicit, within our Convention on Human Rights, to offend, via Free Speech. I know you find that very difficult to accept, but you will learn, in time ... if you really wish to learn. The title is clear, this template is about Human Sexuality. Your cabal have yet to deal with that. Change the title, if you so wish (or do not). Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Offending people on Wikipedia as a practice is forbidden per our policies on civility, please work a better working environment for all editors. If people choose or otherwise disregard your wisdom that doesn't open the door for attacks of any kind. As for the cabal accusation please see these words of wisdom. Banjeboi 05:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Compelled to reply, due to time lag: No wiki overrides Human Rights. You may ban me, but you will not make me abandon those. The LGBT cabal is evidenced by the prejudiced comments and actions (in fact, direct references have been made to their 'sensitivities'). The cabal and its thralls are editing, here. Please do not waste your time pointing me to any wikitosh. I was contemplating and deciding my position, on such issues, long before any wiki was a twinkle in a piece of silicon eye. Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, you will want to stop openly insulting others if you wish to be part of this community. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I am part of the 'community'. Suck the lemon. Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by "suck the lemon"? I'm not familiar with that turn of phrase. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Nigel, you are not the only person in this conversation with a PhD, and even if you were there's no need to put on airs. this paranoid conspiracy-theory stuff is useless and silly, your tone is unnecessarily condescending, and - please! - offense is never a part of learning. no one is going to learn a darned thing from you if they think you are a jerk. tuck it in and settle down, ok? --Ludwigs2 20:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Compelled to reply, due to good manners: That is exactly what the expected reply would be ... and, no, you will never offend me :) Nice try, no banana. Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nigel, I'm not interested in your banana. --Ludwigs2 01:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Editor Oldfield, you do realize that you're not actually discussing a specific ARTICLE about sexual orientation here, don't you? This is the discussion page about a TEMPLATE that is attached to ACTUAL articles to identify categories. To discuss specific theories, natural phenomena, etc. it is best to actually visit the talk page of an real ARTICLE. That would be like opening Linneus' notebook on HOW to categorize plants and animals, and scribbling current observations about a specific individual member of that species in the margin. BMW(drive) 22:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made this argument repeatedly to both Nigel and CoolJuno - they have not to date responded to the issue, so I can't tell whether they don't understand the difference, or whether they do understand and choose to contest the issue on the template regardless. just as a matter of curiosity, I can't seem to find any template-specific policies or guidelines. do you know of any?" because if not, I may write one and ask to have it approved as a guideline. there really should be some different editing rules for templates. --Ludwigs2 23:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

BMW; How delightfully enlightening, TY, whoever you may be. Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

L; I have responded, both in words and action. Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sexology

Once the above issues have been settled I'd like to see sexology re-added, possibly under the Study/research section. Banjeboi 10:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

this would also be a good addition. --Ludwigs2 00:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, sure. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal #5

User:Benjiboi/Sexual orientations template OK, hoping to get some forward movement here without creating another article - which is problematic as I've mentioned previously - I've decided to whip up yet another proposal in hopes to find consensus. I've moved non-heterosexual to the "Research" section as it is more a research term although technically it is still an orientation. I've added sexology, also to the "Research" section as there didn't seem to be an issue with it. And removed the rest that seemed to be more problematic. The two main issues are that many of the articles contested are in poor shape so it's unclear how widely the terms are used and by whom and for what. The other issue is determining which of the many listed in Category:Sexual orientation should be included with a rough consensus that we already have the main ones. Instead I've added a category link so readers can look at all of them and decide which ones to investigate further. As a suggestion to Cooljuno411, if you are absolutely determined to get pomosexual et al onto a template, creating a template of lesser known sexual identities might actually be interesting with a section for archaic terms and working towards modern times with neologisms. In that way this template remains NPOV but you still have all the lesser known terms neatly organized. Banjeboi 09:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• oppose: biasly denies pomosexuals, asexuals, etc. It is not in our place to say who has a sexual orientation and who doesn't.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • side point - you've been asked to do this before, but could you please reduce the font on your signature? large fonts like that are discouraged. --Ludwigs2 22:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• support: good version. --Ludwigs2 22:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - maybe we need to change the title of this template to "Sexual Identity" to make it more general and inclusive. Would it be less controversial to call zoo/pomo/pedo etc. identities instead of orientations? Steve Carlson^Talk 07:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately I'm convinced that nothing short of equal representation will be accepted by those promoting pomosexual et al. Banjeboi 10:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • also, 'sexual identity' and 'sexual orientation' are distinct terms - you can't really use them interchangeably. of course, there is room for discussion on what the template should be reflecting, but it was originally an orientation template. --Ludwigs2 21:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Template:Sexual identities already exists and Pomosexual was already added. Banjeboi 23:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support as nom. Banjeboi 23:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. In my judgment, this is the best of the current proposals, not including the one that was withdrawn. Better because it doesn't include fringe concepts like "pomosexuality" as if they were equivalent to heterosexuality and homosexuality. Skoojal (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support This is cleaner and includes all major orientations. --Alynna (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support This looks like the best option to me. Although it leaves out Pomosexual, that is a neologism still and few people identify with the term. Atom (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Consensus? This is looking like the way to go, given the responses. if there is no further discussion over the next couple of days, I'll edit it it. (incidentally, if someone else goes about the editing in before I get to it, note that there are some formatting changes to the the current template that should be preserved...).--Ludwigs2 01:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)