Jump to content

Talk:Homosexuality

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 74.132.249.206 (talk) at 08:43, 2 March 2012 (→‎"homosexuality" in animals?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleHomosexuality was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 5, 2006Good article nomineeListed
August 2, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
January 9, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
January 26, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article

Religion POV in intro (RFC)

Compacted back-discussion

As in the section above, NARTH is not fully recognized as a professional group because it holds unpopular opinions. Additionally, attempts are made to grossly editorialize around discussion of religion. See above discussion. Posting as an RfC to break the block of standard editors here. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 12:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not sure what you are asking, but i do think that religious points of view are important, relevant and acceptable on this topic. i know nothing about narth, so i can't say yea or nay on that specific one. Soosim (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A quick read of the talk issues and I agree with Soosim. Religious viewpoints are important here, especially because of their controversial nature. They should be presented in ways that do not disparage those who hold them. Additionally, the group "NARTH", whether "fully recognized" or not, I do not know, but it seems the perspective they have does have some validity to it. Inclusion of this perspective, or any other unpopular perspective (particularly ones that—in this case—gays and lesbians—find objectionable) should not be dismissed just because they don't like the conclusions. Senator2029 | talk 18:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And what this RFC is about? I really can't figure out from the intro. If the question is should the religious POV be included in the lead section of the article (because there is already section "Religion" in the article), than the answer is probably Yes. If the question is should NARTH be included in the lead section, and presented as a "professional" organization, than the answer is No. There is already section "Sexual orientation change efforts", where NARTH is mentioned. Organization founded in 1992. without any international reputation can't be included in the lead section of the Homosexuality article.--В и к и T 18:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this RfC, there should be "... a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template ...", from WP:RFC, and it is also suggested that the editor keep the "statement or question simple and succinct, so that the RfC attracts a clear and actionable response." To me, it's not clear if supporting in the RfC would mean supporting the inclusion or the exclusion of a reference to NARTH in the WP:LEDE, and whether it should be considered a professional association, or not. Or is this RfC intended to be just a threaded discussion without the usual support/oppose statements, but opened up to a wider audience. — Becksguy (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the issue here is whether NARTH should be mentioned or cited in the lede then that is simple: no. It's not an international scientific institution, it's a small group of people gathered together to promote their opinion. However the lede is poor in the construction of the end of the second paragraph, where it moves about the subject in an unnatural way (forgive the pun). The use of 'in spite of' is a POV laden phrase, whole religions are misdescribed as 'sects', scare quotes appear, and 'mainstream scientific understanding' is introduced in a way so as to bludgeon its opponents, also a form of POV writing.


I suggest the following rewrite:


Just a quick draft but I do think the lede could do with a bit of NPOV attention. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with your rewrite suggestion.--В и к и T 13:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Bringing them back to heterosexuality" presupposes that they were heterosexual in the first place.--DVD-junkie | talk | 14:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that part must be reworded.--В и к и T 15:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about this, in which I've reworked the "back to…" language, added two apposite links, and moved the crucial "Mainstream scientific understanding…" text closer to the top:


—Scheinwerfermann T·C17:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just end the sentence at "disfunctional", and drop all mention of ex-gay groups altogether. This is the lead of a top level article, and ex-gay groups are probably too fringe to warrant mention here. As the ex-gay movement is practically entirely religiously motivated, the first half of the sentence already covers them. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okeh, how 'bout this:


—Scheinwerfermann T·C19:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I for one feel that the current wording of the part of the paragraph in question is fairly good, but Scheinwerfermann's rewrite is also a good alternative. However I feel that certain parts of the rewrite should be rephrased/changed, and that it would be better written as follows:
"Scientific understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, is biologically determined, cannot be changed, and that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. Prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people, however, has been shown to cause such psychological harm.[4] Some religious and theological perspectives hold the view that homosexual orientation or activity is sinful or dysfunctional, and some contend, incorrectly, that homosexuality is a free choice.[4]"
The parts which I have altered are in green, and here are my reasons for any alterations:
1. "Mainstream" may be redundant - Scientific understanding is the mainstream scientific understanding.
2. Fixed by adulthood is a bit unclear, it should be clearly stated that scientific understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed, and that scientific studies are increasingly showing a biological cause for sexual orientation. I've also added in "and that homosexuality" to make clear what we're talking about in relation to "is not a mental disorder, and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects".
3. Minor change just to link this phrase to the previous one.
4. Should be made clear that it is their opinion/view.
5. Minor change to make it uniform with the first sentence.
Also the part the red should perhaps be rephrased to maybe "religious sects" or to another phrase, but I'm not too sure how it should be rephrased.
--Scientiom (talk) 07:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about "some religious denominations"? That would encompass sects and the catholic church.--DVD-junkie | talk | 12:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I also wonder though if we should generalize it to just "some people, groups, or organizations", because that's what it is isn't it? But that also brings me to question of whether that needs to be there at all (the last sentence) - this is, after all, a medical/mental health topic primarily, not about the views of certain groups, organizations, or people who have no expertise at all in the topic. --Scientiom (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need to convey the facts accurately, but we need to do so with tight, flowing text that doesn't trip the reader or hit him/her over the head. We also should try to avoid setting ourselves up for squabbles and edit wars based on the perception of POV bias, such as is caused by words like "incorrectly". Let's try some copyediting:


—Scheinwerfermann T·C19:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, fairly good rewrite - I'd chop off the "really" from "cannot really be changed" - it doesn't seem very professional with the "really" and may confuse the reader. The rest is well written, but I still have objections to the last sentence - is opinion like that really warranted on an article which really a mental health / science topic? And if it need be there, does it have to be in the lead? --Scientiom (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's a pretty good rewrite, and also question whether the last sentence should be in the lead at all for the same reason you gave. As far as mainstream mental health and science go, it represents a fringe position, and it has no scientific basis. The objections of Jehovah's Witnesses to blood transfusions is not mentioned in the lead of Blood Transfusion, but are briefly summarized in the body of the article. The same should be done with religious views, all the more so because there is already an article on the topic. Two, in fact: Religion and homosexuality and LGBT matters and religion. Since this is a top level article, religious views should be summarized briefly in the body of the article, with links to the above-mentioned articles. I see no need to mention them in the lead at all. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I inserted really because "ex-gay" and "conversion therapy" advocates play shell games with the definition of "change"—counting as "changed" a homosexual who has been shamed and browbeaten into an opposite-sex marriage or into putative celibacy, for example. If we object to the word choice per se because "really" is frequently used as a colloquial emphatic, perhaps we could change it to "actually", but I do feel something needs to be there to connote a refutation of religious dogmatics babbling about how "change is possible". As to the last sentence, I hold no strong position on whether it should be included; I can see both sides of that debate. If we want to deal with the religious perspectives later on in the article, that's certainly fine by me. So, how 'bout:


—Scheinwerfermann T·C16:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me, except that the "truly" is distracting. I see no need for a qualifier here. It actually weakens the statement. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to keep specific mention of NARTH out of the lead. But I do believe that something about ex-gay groups should be mentioned in the lead for the reasons that Scheinwerfermann has stated in the past and above in this section. I'm unsure, however, about saying "Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is biologically determined," because, as the lead of the Biology and sexual orientation article (which is backed up by sources) says, "No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, but research suggests that it is by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences, with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment." Researchers are not in agreement that sexual orientation is simply a biological matter and that's it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really, I prefer the previous lead. Flyer22 (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is wiki-ignorance on my part, but as well-written as Scheinwerfermann's suggestions are, I have a question about "some contend that homosexuality is a free choice." Specifically, the word "some." Every time I see that on a wiki article, someone has added the "who?" template. Also, although I'm sure there are individuals who contend it's a free choice on non-religious grounds, the primary force behind that line of thinking is religious. Religious objection to homosexuality is mainstream enough that I think it belongs in the lede; conversion concepts and organizations, on the other hand, are NOT mainstream enough to warrant mention in the lede, I think. Mreleganza (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

H'm. Which proposal are you looking at? The latest proposed text does not include "some contend that homosexuality is a free choice", but even if it did (or even if that text does wind up in the lede), it's supported by reference to a reliable source, thus answering the "Who?" question before it is asked. I don't see the issue you see. —Scheinwerfermann T·C22:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been a bit WP:BOLD and have altered the section in question: [1]. --Scientiom (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good move. That was long overdue. Thanks! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted, partly per what I stated above -- "Researchers are not in agreement that sexual orientation is simply a biological matter and that's it." Further, the Sexual orientation article mentions how sexual orientation is not always stable over time. For some people, and I don't mean people were closeted and later came out, their sexual orientation has changed. That very section is also in this article. The proposal that Scientiom added is not only somewhat inaccurate, it is a run-on sentence that sounds like it has something to prove. I suggest going with Scheinwerfermann's second proposal:
The "fixed by adulthood" part, which I don't see much of a problem with, except that it should say "typically fixed by adulthood," can be changed to "typically set by adulthood," "generally unchangeable" (just that without the "by adulthood" part) or "generally stable." Something like that. Scientiom's other minor suggestions for changing Scheinwerfermann's proposal are easy enough to implement. We also have agreement that what religious secs think of homosexuality should be mentioned in the lead. I'll note right now that going by WP:LEAD, it should be. That's another reason I was for ex-gay groups being mentioned in the lead. People trying to "reform" gay and lesbian individuals has been a big part of homosexuality for many years now and has a section dedicated to it in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with part of your response - sexual orientation is a fixed trait, most likely an innate one, not just one "fixed by adulthood" or "generally stable", it is an unchangeable trait - the section which has some suggestions contrary to that is not supported by studies which have been peer reviewed and approved by any globally significant mental health organization. Additionally, an increasing number of studies are showing that sexual orientation is biologically determined. The changes I made reflect the general understanding increasingly of the medical and mental health professions. Lastly, I do not feel that any unprofessional opinions unrelated to the medical aspects of the topic are warranted in the lead - perhaps in the body, but not in the lead - in what is primarily a mental health topic --Scientiom (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scientiom, I am not disputing that sexual orientation is a fixed trait. I am disputing simply calling it a biological trait, and that it is a fixed trait for everyone. I am not only doing so because of my personal opinion that it is not as simple as "You were born heterosexual or homosexual, etc." (which I know has no bearing on this discussion), but because researchers are not in agreement that "it is biologically determined and that is it." As though they believe biology is the only cause/explanation for sexual orientation. They are not even in agreement that sexual orientation is always partly biologically-determined. But do they generally believe that sexual orientation is due to a combination of things? Yes. The Sexual orientation and Biology and sexual orientation articles, as well as this one, state the same thing about that. And I have studied the topic extensively enough to know this information without referring to those sections. "Fixed by adulthood" is generally researchers' way of saying that sexual orientation is not likely to be changed past that point. Really, a lot of them believe that sexual orientation develops in early childhood and/or adolescence and is not likely to be changed after that. But as I pointed out by directing you and others to the Fluidity of sexuality section, even that -- no change -- is not the case for everyone. The American Psychiatric Association has stated "some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime." Additionally, a report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health states: "For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time." These are not just "suggestions"; these are statements of certainty/authority. The American Psychological Association touches on the "early childhood/adolescence" factor, when they say, "According to current scientific and professional understanding, the core attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence." And, finally, their take on what causes sexual orientation is the following:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientist to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

I'm certain that if studies definitively showed that sexual orientation was biologically-based/only biologically-based and can never be changed, then these sources would not be reporting otherwise. The lead of the Biology and sexual orientation article would not say "No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, but research suggests that it is by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences, with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment." So, really, to attribute sexual orientation to biology and/or only to biology is a suggestion thus far. I can list a variety of sources where researchers say something along the lines of "We don't definitively know what causes sexual orientation, but we believe biology plays a part" and/or "research suggests that it does." The key word is "part." The wording you implemented makes it sound as though sexual orientation is only determined by biology. It also sounds like a checklist of someone refuting every argument made against homosexuality. Hence, my belief that it sounds like it has something to prove. Now you can continue to assert that "Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is biologically-determined" and "cannot truly be changed," but that is not what the authoritative sources on sexual orientation have to say about this, except for when saying that sexual orientation is fixed for most people and that sexual orientation change efforts, in their opinion, do not work.
As for the other part, religious beliefs about homosexuality belong in the lead. Homosexuality is not simply a medical topic. Nor is it "primarily a mental health topic," and many gays and lesbians would take offense to it being categorized as such; some hate the words "homosexual/homosexuality" because they feel they are "excessively clinical," given homosexuality's status in the past, as noted by the Gay article. Homosexuality is also a cultural topic, and most others above agreed that religious beliefs belong in the lead (while disputing specific mention of NARTH being there). There is no valid reason to exclude religious beliefs from the lead, since they have always been a big part of the discussion of homosexuality. WP:LEAD is clear about what should go in the lead -- things that adequately summarize a topic. Including religious beliefs does that. I feel the same about mentioning efforts to change a gay or lesbian sexual orientation, which I personally feel is garbage talk, but that is more so up for debate.
In summary, I cannot agree with the version you implemented, no matter if we were to debate this for months. So instead of debating it, why not go for Scheinwerfermann's second proposal? You only had minor issues with it. So why not just tweak them in a way that we can both agree on? Flyer22 (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I changed the debated piece to this:[2]
It's accurate, adequate and non-preachy. I'm not sure why we were saying that sexual orientation is not a mental disorder. No one says that it is, except those claiming such about homosexuality. Then again, the same can be said of "choice." But at least the belief about "choice" has been applied to bisexuality and asexuality, and a minority of people have even said the same about heterosexuality. Anyway, the current version gets across the point that sexual orientation is not a choice and that homosexuality is not a mental disorder just fine. I wonder if the " like heterosexuality" part should be "like heterosexuality and bisexuality" for anyone who may conclude that we're saying bisexuality isn't just as normal. But then where would that leave asexuality, which the sources don't even mention? Hopefully, people don't read too much into the line and see it for the example that it is. Though leaving out "like heterosexuality" occurred to me, the sentence is much stronger and flows better with that in it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this is an improvement over the existing lead, especially considering that consensus here is to remove mention of "ex-gay" organizations from the lead as it is too fringe. Also using words like "contend" is a a bit odd, perhaps change that to "research indicates". I agree with you that we don't need to say "is not a mental disorder", perhaps it should be changed to a quote from the APA on the topic, if I remember right, stating that it is "a normal and positive variant of human sexuality" --Scientiom (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how it is not an improvement. It's concise, true to the sources and non-preachy. And the version you reverted to also has the wording "ex-gay" organizations in it.[3] But I'll work with you on something we can both agree on. It sounds like we're almost there. From what I read, consensus actually was/is not for removing "ex-gay" organizations from the lead. It was/is for removing specific mention of NARTH from the lead. And any in case, all you had to do was remove the "ex-gay" organizations part. However, I can agree to leave that bit out, even though I feel that it should be in the lead...per WP:LEAD. There's nothing wrong with the word "contend." How is it odd? It's saying that researchers firmly believe this. Saying "Research indicates that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a normal variation of human sexual orientation." makes it sound as though there is doubt that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexual orientation. That's what words like "suggests" and "indicates" do. Researchers use those words when reporting what determines sexual orientation, for example, because they aren't exactly sure. They just know that they believe both biology and environment have something to do with it. Anyway, maybe you'd be okay with substituting a word for "contend." How about this:
I left out the ex-gay part. But religion should stay, per what I stated above; it also leads in nicely to what scientists/most mental health professionals say in contrast to those beliefs. And of course you see how I changed "contend" to "state," and used the quote you attribute to the APA instead of "a normal variation of human sexual orientation" (although that wording also worked, but I digress). I don't know if you mean the American Psychological Association or the American Psychiatric Association, and I don't know where that exact quote is, but it works just as well. It's sourced either way, since the sources do say that homosexuality is normal and healthy. My wording was just a bit different. Flyer22 (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, instead of "researchers state" how about "research and studies show"? That's more accurate. --Scientiom (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with that. In fact, I prefer it and had thought about using something similar. Either is accurate, but I understand your point about "research and studies show" being more accurate...since these statements are based on research and not just opinion.
So do we have our new text now? Flyer22 (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One final wording change proposal for clarity (and adding Scientiom's proposed change into this as well):


That prevents any possibly ambiguity as to whether the "Though..." sentence is referring to "prejudice and discrimination" in both parts of it by clarifying that the "Though..." section refers to homosexuality, while the ending is referring to prejudice and discrimination. More wordy, but less chance of misinterpretation. Thoughts? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, RobertMfromLI. I didn't even think of ambiguity, because it seems so natural to me that people would know we're still talking about homosexuality. I mean, how is prejudice and discrimination not in itself a source of negative psychological effects? Unless we're talking about the people committing prejudice and discrimination instead of the ones receiving it. But, hmm, even the perpetrators could be considered "a source of negative psychological effects," since they are the ones causing it and may be having psychological problems themselves.
Anyway, people have been known to misinterpret even the simplest of sentences or sentences that are believed to be clear/simple, so I don't mind your slight alteration. It's no biggie. One more thing, though, the "has" in the last sentence should be "have." Obviously, I didn't catch that before. Flyer22 (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few more suggestions and then I believe we can implement these changes: Firstly, perhaps "but rather a complex interplay of biology and environment" should be removed as understanding on what determines sexual orientation is rapidly shifting with an increasing amount of studies pointing to an exclusively biological cause - so it may be best to simply leave that out for the time being. Secondly, perhaps "Although some religious sects hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful or dysfunctional behavior" should be shortened to simply "Although some religous sects view homosexual activity negatively". Lastly, is "like heterosexuality" really necessary here? We're ignoring bisexuality and asexuality then, and perhaps adding to the incorrect belief that there are only two sexual orientations by only comparing one with one other. Thoughts on my suggestions? --Scientiom (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


My random spewings:
  • On point #1 ("but rather..."), if suitable sources are available, perhaps someone could rework it?
  • On point #2 ("Although..."), while there are people against using such terms, that is the exact way the ref characterizes it, so I'm not sure if a change in wording not supported in the source is a viable option.
  • On point #3 ("like heterosexuality..."), I think this too requires looking at the source to see what's supportable.
Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 17:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scientiom, I prefer the wording prior to your suggestions, and I really don't see a need to keep picking at the proposal. I've gone over why the wording "but rather a complex interplay of biology and environment" should be included instead of simply saying "it is biological." Not only have I not seen these studies "pointing to an exclusively biological cause" for sexual orientation, all of the studies I have seen point to both biology and environment or biology being part of the cause (PART). Never have I seen any reliable/authoritative sources saying that sexual orientation is only biological, especially given the people whose sexual orientation (not just sexual identity) changes over time or later in life (no matter how few those people are). This is backed by the reliable/authoritative sources in the article, one that is both reliable and authoritative that is used in the proposal. So I am not seeing a problem there. It seems you now want to keep any mention of what causes sexual orientation out of the lead, but if we are going to say that sexual orientation is not a choice, then we should mention what researchers believe to be the cause(s). And research thus far suggests "biology and environment" are the causes. If there is ever a day where it says "only biology," and it is clear that most researchers believe that (enough for whichever APA to also make that claim), though I doubt that will happen, then we can alter the lead to that. I also object to your second most recent proposal. The lead should be WP:Neutral. "Although some religious sects hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful or dysfunctional behavior" is a neutral description of what religious sects believe it to be, unless one were to say the word "Although" is not neutral since it is leading into opposition. But oh well. The line also better summarizes the beliefs of these religious sects. Just saying "Although some religious sects view homosexual activity negatively" does not tell us what they find negative about it, and so to then report that "research and studies show that homosexuality... ...is a normal and positive variant of human sexuality" seems irrelevant. Why report the latter if the former is not clear what the latter is responding to?
As for "like heterosexuality," see what I stated above. I said: "I wonder if the "like heterosexuality" part should be "like heterosexuality and bisexuality" for anyone who may conclude that we're saying bisexuality isn't just as normal. But then where would that leave asexuality, which the sources don't even mention? Hopefully, people don't read too much into the line and see it for the example that it is. Though leaving out "like heterosexuality" occurred to me, the sentence is much stronger and flows better with that in it." I stand by that. To me, it makes the sentence stronger, showing that researchers view homosexuality in the same way they view opposite-sex relationships when it comes to weighing a normal sexual direction. The line feels empty to me without it. And, yes, Robert, that is backed up by the source. Not the exact wording, but saying that homosexuality has been deemed as normal as the other sexual orientations is. Further, as we know, bisexuality is a combination of heterosexuality and homosexuality. I doubt that people will think we're saying that heterosexuality and homosexuality are normal, but bisexuality is not. Unless some people think we're saying a person should only be sexuality attracted to one sex. Not two. But these misinterpretations that we are worried about are few and far between, I believe. Should we really be this worried about misinterpretations? A lot of written things have the possibility of being misinterpreted. And asexuality? Well, most researchers aren't clear on whether they consider it to be a normal sexual orientation or not. But all that said, if "like heterosexuality" bothers you guys, I can agree to remove that. I had thought about just wording it as "like other sexual orientations," but some people define sexual orientation differently. Just see Talk:Sexual orientation, and how a few people (or rather the same person with different screen names) have tried to get zoosexuality listed as a sexual orientation. I don't want people thinking we're including every type of sexuality.
Robert, what issue do you have with "but rather..."? Or are you talking about the whole line? As said above, it flows fine to me. More than fine, and is backed up by the sources. The way you went over the points, it seemed that you were only addressing the words.
Just to sum up, I can agree to leave out "like heterosexuality." But I don't agree with leaving out what most scientists/mental health professionals believe to be the causes of sexual orientation...if we are going to mention that sexual orientation is not a choice; and we should mention something about that or that a homosexual orientation is not a choice, since so many people believe that it is. Is homosexual behavior a choice? Yes. A homosexual (sexual) orientation is not. Nor can I agree to leave out why these religious sects find homosexuality to be negative. Like I said above, just saying "they view it negatively" tells us nothing, and doesn't flow well with reporting the opposition to it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm willing to give way on #2 and #3, but I'm still concerned about #1 - it is unclear what we mean when we say "environment" - and it may seem like it's giving credibility to discredited junk science theories which assert that sexual abuse causes a homosexual (sexual) orientation, for example. Perhaps we should simply say "and is naturally determined" instead? It's shorter, gets to the point, and covers biology and environment in the sense we're trying to convey. --Scientiom (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer22. Re: "but rather..."


My comment was in regards to Scientom's comment: "..."but rather a complex interplay of biology and environment" should be removed as understanding on what determines sexual orientation is rapidly shifting with an increasing amount of studies pointing to an exclusively biological cause..." (italics to show that was the "but rather" I was indicating).

I've got no problem with the current wording, as it's supported by the sources. Scientom brings up a good point though that such perspectives are changing (which is what I was responding to), and I was trying to say I've also got no problems with the line being changed to reflect that, as long as we had reliable sources to indicate such. Inotherwords: happy either way, as long as if we pick Scientom's proposal, we've got the sources to back it (which from the efforts so far, I probably didn't need to say). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 17:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm for removing the "like heterosexuality" - it's implied without it - at least in this day and age. It also leaves an implication that bisexuality fits someplace in that sentence. That makes the changes we are all discussing look like this:
If people think removing "like heterosexuality" in any way changes the meaning in a way not supported by the sources, the I suspect we've got more work to do. Otherwise, I'm up for this proposal and second it. Thoughts? ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, sorry, Scientom's comments on "but rather... biology and environment" are still under discussion I think. I believe it is probably supportable that many researchers are leaning more towards biology and genetics - but with environment playing some possible role (which I think is in line with what Scientom is trying to point out). But we need cites. I'm looking and will check back here to see if anyone beats me to finding some. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scientom, the wording "Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biology and environment." is more accurate, more descriptive and sounds a lot better than "Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but is naturally determined." What does "naturally-determined" mean? It could mean biological or environmental, considering that researchers consider the role that environment plays in sexual orientation to be just as natural. So why not just list "biology and environment," like the sources say? I don't see this "giving credibility to discredited junk science theories which assert that sexual abuse causes a homosexual (sexual) orientation." And even if someone were to interpret it that way, that has not stopped scientists from saying "biology and environment"/"nature and nurture." Again, this what I mean about being too worried about misinterpretation. If someone misinterprets this, neglecting to read up on what we are saying, that is not our problem. We are not reporting anything different than what researchers say every time they use these words, than what the Sexual orientation article or the Biology and sexual orientation article say. I understand about wanting to be especially careful with this article, since there is so much misinformation out there about homosexuality, but I feel that we are being needlessly picky now. If a reader does not take the time to see what we mean by what we have summarized in the lead, that is their problem. We should not be bending over backwards to make sure absolutely nothing is misinterpreted. Because someone somewhere out there is going to see things how they want to see them anyway.
Robert, as for looking for cites that say researchers are leaning more toward a biological cause for sexual orientation, I believe they are looking more into biological causes, yes. But that doesn't mean they are giving environmental causes little attention. And like I said, thus far...they have concluded that both biology and environment play a role. And, really, we should go by authoritative sources when it comes to defining sexual orientation. Not what one or two single studies suggest. We should report what is scientific consensus on the matter. And given what I stated above about people's sexual orientation changing over time or later in life, I doubt that scientific consensus will ever reach the conclusion that sexual orientation is only biological. Sexual orientation being a combination of biology and environment has been reported as early as 1995, and before that of course. See this 1995 article, which states: Research into the biological basis of sexual orientation "presents a clear double message. Yes, genetics plays a part. No, it is not all genetics," Dora B. Goldstein, professor emeritus of molecular pharmacology, told the audience that attended the first in a series of public lectures sponsored by the Medical Center's Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual Community on March 9. "This shouldn't be too surprising because that is what all kinds of behavioral studies indicate. Genes determine everything. The environment affects everything. Then there is this big area where the two interact," she added.
That is pretty much what researchers have continued to say since 1995. The more recent sources beside the "complex interplay of biology and environment" line show that. I would have gone for a "nature and nurture" wording, but I don't like the implication of "nurture." Too many people view "nurture" as "having been raised that way." And we certainly don't need anyone thinking that people were made gay because that's how they were raised. That is a misinterpretation to be concerned about, and is another reason why I prefer "biology and environment." Sure, while some can take "environment" to mean "this person is gay because of where he or she lived" or something similar to that, that is not exactly accurate with regard to how researchers use the term when determining sexual orientation, and the addition of "complex interplay of biology and environment" takes care of what we mean -- that summing up what causes sexual orientation is not so simple and often involves a mix of the two.
At least it's clear that we are all okay with leaving out "like heterosexuality." Flyer22 (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed to leaving out "like heterosexuality", but I still feel it may be better for the first phrase in question to be shortened to "and is naturally determined" or perhaps "and is a naturally determined trait", as it does entirely cover what we're trying to say. --Scientiom (talk) 09:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22: As I said, happy either way, presuming cites support it. So, the "genetic/environment" issue is one we can always revisit if new studies require such.
Scientom: I think shortening the wording seems nice - but I do not think it accurately portrays the source by creating too much ambiguity. In actuality it may misrepresent the source by not being definitive of what the sources consider the naturally determining factors. "complex interplay..." seems to more properly suit the sources, even though I agree (as Flyer22 pointed out) that it leaves room for misinterpretation. Sadly, I suspect we have to leave that room, because defining what the sources meant becomes synthesis on our part, even if we are correct (ie: we can't do that unless we can find a cite that actually does such a definition). Alas, sometimes properly defining something in an article in the way we know (or think) the sources meant it isn't always possible because it's not what the sources said. I think, sans other sources to use, we've gotta leave that one the way it is. :-( Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Before I respond to Scientom's latest reply, I want to mention that another reason I doubt scientific consensus will ever be "Sexual orientation is all biological" is due to the twin studies. Twin studies, researching "identical" twins, have shown that even with people who share pretty much the same exact biology, one twin may turn out to be heterosexual...while the other may not. So researchers often ponder the following: If sexual orientation is all biological, then why wouldn't both twins be heterosexual? This is of course discussed in the Sexual orientation article, as well as the Biology and sexual orientation article.
Moving on: Scientom, I gotta say, I can't budge on the "complex interplay of biology and environment" wording, per what I and Robert stated above. The suggestion of "and is naturally determined" or "and is a naturally determined trait" is just too ambiguous and leaves more room for misinterpretation. I have no doubt that some people will take "naturally-determined" to only mean "biological," for example. Instead of taking that risk -- of having people misinterpret what we mean by "naturally-determined" -- it's best to just state what we mean. And what we mean is "biological and environmental." And when we include the words "complex interplay," it helps significantly because it shows that what determines sexual orientation isn't as simple as "Oh, it's biological and/or environmental." Because, really, it's actually often a complicated interaction between the two, most researchers believe. That is the best summary we can give of what scientists/researchers believe to be the causes of sexual orientation. And "environment" includes what researchers believe to be the role of hormones during embryonic/fetal development; a lot of them have concluded that this also has something to do with what determines one's sexual orientation. Yes, someone may misinterpret the word "environment," but the lead is for summarizing. It is the reader's job to then explore what we mean by the lead, by reading through the aforementioned parts of the article. Like I said, "If a reader does not take the time to see what we mean by what we have summarized in the lead, that is their problem. We should not be bending over backwards to make sure absolutely nothing is misinterpreted. Because someone somewhere out there is going to see things how they want to see them anyway." Flyer22 (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Religion POV in intro (RFC): Continued

Question: Are we inferring (or using) the term "biology" to include genetics? And by "we", I mean the sources we've taken those terms from? If not (ie: the sources aren't discussing genetics and research in that area - instead limiting to more simple biology), then perhaps that's the area where recent research (and changes to this section) can come into play? If not, then for lack of being able to think up anything that better portrays it, I'm all for "complex... biological and environmental..." as the wording. Otherwise (if supported by current cites or new ones), I'd propose "complex... biological, genetic and evironmental..." as new wording. Thoughts? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 00:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, Robert, it's a little late for a section break. But, yes, the sources are including "genetics" in what they mean by "biology." They even use the word "genetics" as well. And in any regard, genetics include biology, and biology encompasses genetics. In what instance are you thinking this is not the case? In the example I mentioned above -- about hormones during embryonic/fetal development being considered to partly (or sometimes) determine sexual orientation? If so, that is covered by "environment." But I wouldn't describe hormonal influences during embryonic/fetal development as "genetic" anyway. I'd simply call it "hormonal," like the sources do. Flyer22 (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, lack of coffee clarity. What I was trying to say, for lack of ambiguity for those who (unlike us) understand biology encompasses genetics, was that if the article citation uses both terms, then for clarity, perhaps we can as well. I'm not strongly for such. I'm split. I don't like redundancy... but I also don't like (on more complex subjects) not being specific where needed so the average reader understands what's being written. I've met a lot of people who think biology and genetics are unrelated fields. Sans lessons on such, I simply figured including both terms (if supportable by the cites - instead of the cite only mentioning biology) would solve that "issue" (or "non-issue"). Or maybe I just need another cup of joe... Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a person with average scientific knowledge I would clarify by using both. Good luck with the coffe situation.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LoL, thanks! I'm on my way out for a 7-11 break in a few minutes. ;-) Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 02:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are here - this is with "genetics" added, which is most definitely still awaiting feedback from more of you (ie: I've inserted it, but it's not yet a given and discussion is still ongoing):
Thoughts on how we are doing? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 03:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Using both works. I like it, its gotta good beat. I can dance to it. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I'm not hard-pressed against it either, Robert, although I do find using both "biology" and "genetics" to be redundant. It's like we're implying that we mean two different things, and I cannot fathom what two different things we mean in this case. If we had to choose one of the two, however, I'd go with "biology," because the sexual orientation debate usually asks "Is sexual orientation biological" as opposed to "Does sexual orientation involve genetics?" And because we have an article titled Biology and sexual orientation, not Genetics and sexual orientation, although, yes, of course the former is also about the latter. And the sources are using the words interchangeably, from what I have observed, not as two different things.
Anyway, let's go ahead and implement this new wording. We've debated an alternate text for that part of the lead long enough. I feel the need to mention that the "Homosexuality is one of the three main categories..." line should stay, as that leads into introducing the other sexual orientations. What we've been focused on is the text following that. Flyer22 (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing about the proposal: We could also simply use the wording taken from the Biology and sexual orientation article -- "a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences." Yes, "hormonal" is somewhat redundant to "environmental," since researchers consider hormonal factors to be a part of "environmental influences," but I figured it was worth a thought. Not many people think "hormones" when they think "environmental," after all, making it less redundant. Flyer22 (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well? Three of us have stated that we are okay with the proposal. Should I go ahead and implement one of these consensus versions? Or should we be clear on which wording we like the best for the biology part first? We have "a complex interplay of biology and environment," "a complex interplay of genetics, biology and environment"...and "a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences" (or "complex interplay" if we substitute it for "combination"). Flyer22 (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh! Oooh! Can I? I keep being told I need more mainspace edits... it's hard to point to talk pages to show I actually contribute to content creation and/or changes. ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 17:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, of course I don't mind. Which wording are you going to choose? I'd prefer the first or the last one, per what I stated about the redundancy of including "genetics" and "biology," but I'm okay with leaving it up to you. Flyer22 (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one?


I agree on what you say about adding "genetics..." - except for the layman who may not realize the overlap... I can either remove it (and we can consider adding it back later), or I can leave it in (and we can consider removing it later). Suggestions? -Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by leaving out "genetics." And, really, linking "biology," which of course details genetics, should be sufficient. It's not our fault if someone somehow doesn't understand that biology encompasses genetics and/or doesn't click on the link. But like I said, I'm okay with leaving that decision up to you. Flyer22 (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done

  • Inserted new text.
  • Removed "genetics" as redundant (as a separate edit, so it can easily be undone if warranted
  • Left in "Homosexuality is one of the three main categories[...]" sentence until discussion on that point finalizes


Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say this link for environment, added by Scientiom, is "more appropriate." In addition to hormones in the womb affecting the fetus, researchers also mean "social interaction" with regard to the environment affecting sexual orientation. Environment (biophysical) is more about natural environment and built environment. I understand that Scientiom is worried about people thinking that someone is "made gay" by say, child sexual abuse, but researchers do believe that human interaction over the years can help form one's sexual orientation. Above, I already went over how they contend that sexual orientation is often formed in early childhood and/or adolescence and that sexual orientation can form and/or change across a person's lifetime. And, of course, I am not including "child sexual abuse" into that equation. It doesn't seem that we can accurately link any article to represent what we mean by "environment." Linking to Social environment doesn't cover "hormones during embryonic/fetal development," and linking Environment (biophysical) doesn't cover "social interaction" (at least not clearly). And I certainly don't believe that we should link both. Therefore, I feel that we should leave "environment" unlinked and let readers refer to the sources, article and related articles for what we mean by "environment."
On a side note: Even though I and some researchers don't use it this way with regard to sexual orientation, "hormones" could be considered covered by "biology" -- as in the woman's biology affecting the fetus. Which means we could just let "environment" refer to social interaction instead. But, yeah, I prefer leaving it unlinked. Flyer22 (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might have been the one to originally link that word. I've got no problems with the link being removed. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I gather you mean either link? I removed the link Scientiom added in place of yours.
If there is a strong need to stress what we mean by "environment," we could add "both hormonal and social influences" in parentheses right after the "biology and environment" part. But that could be a bad move, since some people may take "hormonal" to mean "puberty" instead of "embryonic/fetal development," and "social influences" without detail can imply just what Scientiom fears "environment" can imply. While "environment" without detail can imply the same thing to people, it's better and more accurate in wording than "social influences," and it is what the sources say. So, again, I prefer to leave "environment" unlinked and let the readers refer to the sources, article and related articles for what we mean by the word. Flyer22 (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Documenting update here for when this discussion is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motion for "Criticism of Homosexual Relationships" Section

As far as I can tell none of this article addresses opposition to homosexuality aside from the "politics" and "religion" sections in very brief mention. I do not think there is enough criticism of the behavior to warrant an entire page, like the "opposition to the legalization of abortion" and anti-same-sex marriage pages. However, a more significant blurb should probably be outlined, presumably summarizing argumentation done by contemporary writers (I'd be willing to contribute some of that, in the form of some work from Finnis and Beckwith, should this edit be approved of). 198.151.130.143 (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC) DDiaz[reply]

Hi DDiaz, I'd suspect a little further clarity on what you are suggesting may be helpful so the community can weigh in on it. Personally, I'm not sure what more can be put in. Each "mini section" has a link to a full article. Remember, this article isn't about those topics as a whole. It simply touches upon them and points the reader to the full article on that subset topic. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 21:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, what I'm thinking of here are the ethical arguments against homosexuality raised by Christians, Muslims, secular homophobes, the KKK, etc. Right now it seems like the article just has a sprinkled pastiche of these views here and there, as if they are not a major cultural or intellectual phenomenon. The articles on Gay Marriage, Abortion, Adultery, etc do not run in the same ilk. We might say this is due to the legal factors surrounding those issues, but there are individual articles strictly devoted to ethical opinions on each of these things, whereas we don't see this for the actual homosexuality stuff. I'm not thinking a full fledged article like conservapedia would have would be a good idea, because I don't think there is a sufficient amount of content or facts to put in it. However a stub would be useful, which we could link to in this article. Some resources which contain arguments against homosexuality from an ethical standpoint include Finnis' "The Good of Marriage and the Morality of Sexual Relations", Robert George's "Public Reason and Political Conflict: Abortion and Homosexual Acts" and Bradshaw's Reply to Corvino's essay "Why Shouldn't Tommy and Jimmy Have Sex?", both of which are published in the volume "Same Sex: Debating the Ethics, Science, and Culture of Homosexuality". 198.151.130.137 (talk) 06:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC) DDiaz[reply]
I'm not seeing sections "opposition to" Darwinism or Heterosexuality. Even if some people believe the sun goes round the earth, would that warrant a mention in Heliocentrism? Homosexuality is an article about that phenomenon, not whether people believe it exists, of who disagree with it existing. - MishMich - Talk - 02:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For a great example of how much criticism of the subject should be in an article, even one on something or someone frequently condemned by some in society, see Noam Chomsky. HiLo48 (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noam Chomsky? Secs. "Heterosexism and homophobia" and "Violence against gay and lesbian people" are arguments in contra quite sufficient, without adding paragraphs of homophobic nonsense just to show "the other side" of the story. Shame for even suggesting such a thing, IP - and actually citing the KKK as an example of a fair-minded oppositional view! Djathinkimacowboy 08:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colors need to be changed, said the interior decorator

The map's colors are wrong. Light colors usually indicate freedom, while darker colors indicate lack or loss of same. I would suggest for the map a range of colors starting with White for the most liberated countries, i.e. those that have legalised gay marriage, and going to Black for the most anti-gay ones, i.e. those who punish homosexuality with death. -The Gnome (talk) 10:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

" Although some religious sects hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful or dysfunctional behaviour,[4] research and studies show that homosexuality is a normal and positive variant of human sexuality." Studies are not capable of identifying what is moral or "positive" such a thing as this is not possible and as it is worded here it seems to say that research has found homosexuality unsinful which would be even less possible as a divine diety defines what is sinful and cannot be determined by any natural means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.2.225 (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I've replaced "sinful" with "unnatural". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited it a bit further. That wording's bothered me for a while. Homosexuality is no more "positive" (or negative) than heterosexuality. garik (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the new changes (and I do feel that replacing "sinful" was a good choice due to what is stated above, how it flowed with the rest of the sentence), but I want to point out to the IP that studies identify what is positive all the time. What has positive and negative effects, what is viewed as positive, that type of thing. This is why we mention in the lead that prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people have been shown to cause psychological harm. As for "moral," yes, you have a point there. But, again, studies would be going on what people consider to be moral. Flyer22 (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Position of "History" section

Every article and every subject has its own peculiarities, and therefore it is not wise to fix rules applicable to all. Nevertheless it seems to me a normal order to have the "history" section at the beginning, as it supplies an introductory information about what has been the "evolution" of the subject till now. In the present instance, I think that it would be useful to have it in this position. I may be wrong, though, in which case would appreciate to hear the diverging opinions.--Auró (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Auró. How is this more neutral wording? In my opinion, it disrupts the flow of that paragraph, making it seem as though that part of the paragraph should be separated into its own. We just got through working out the wording of that paragraph in October/November, at #Religion POV in intro (RFC) and again at #NPOV. I went ahead and used the word "While," since you removed "Although." Flyer22 (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Flyer22. Neutral wording was meant for the change from "religious sects" to "religious organizations". For the rest, it seems me ok as you have done.--Auró (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I figured that's what you meant upon looking at your edit again today. I originally didn't see the "sects" change. I thought you objected to "Although." Thanks for explaining. I might add "Although" back later, but "While" obviously works just as well. Flyer22 (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Auró, do you mind if the Etymology section comes first and the History section comes after that? In most Wikipedia articles about terms, how the term came into existence (the Etymology section) usually comes first. Of course, this topic is about more than a term, but still. Flyer22 (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was myself doubting about the best position for Etymology, and at the end was not much convinced. If you have it clear, go ahead.--Auró (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I made the change. I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other; I just feel that it makes more sense for an Etymology/Definitions section to come first. We don't really need the Synonyms and Kinsey scale headings, though. Flyer22 (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Kinsey scale is clearly misplaced, but it is an important topic, and I am still not familiar enough with this page/subject as to propose some better treatment. Maybe later on.--Auró (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting that the two sections be removed. Only the headings, which are unnecessary. Flyer22 (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the heading of synonyms can be removed, as for the Kinsey scale, maybe it would be better placed under “Sexuality and gender identity", maintaining the heading.--Auró (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, although it would be best to place the Kinsey scale section there without the heading. The heading is not needed unless that section is going to be expanded. Right now, it's just a sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are right, at present it does not need a heading. I have placed it under "Sexuality and gender identity/Same-sex romance and relationships" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auró (talk • contribs) 23:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I removed the Synonyms heading, tweaking left-behind text a bit. Flyer22 (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Is homosexuality a paraphilia: The evidence for and against"

A new article on this topic has just been published (in Archives of Sexual Behavior), summarizing many of the correlates of the homosexuality and the paraphilias. Should anyone decide any of its contents should be integrated into the mainpage, it was published open access, so it can be downloaded and circulated freely: [4]. The article contains a very substantial reference list to the primary literature.
— James Cantor (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't the right place to promote or publish articles you have written, no matter how relevant they might be to the topic. Someone963852 (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion and desire to protect WP. I very carefully checked WP:COI before typing anything (and perhaps this conversation might be better had at WP:COI/N), and not only am indeed allowed to add that link/article to the talkpage, I am even allowed to add it to the mainpage.
From WP:COS: "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies" (which it very obviously does). In other words, not only have I merely obeyed the relevant guidelines, I have restricted myself even more than I had to, by sticking to the talkpage instead. (Moreover, I also out myself on my userpage, which I also do despite COI saying very specifically that it is not required.) So, I think I have earned a little more AGF than this.
That said--and repeating that I am enitrely permitted to cite my article on the mainpage myself if I so desired--how about we instead discuss how and whether the mainpage could be improved given a new RS on the topic. If nothing else, my article has an extensive reference list that will lead you to many primary sources, should you prefer them.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Simple answer, James, is that for an article as controversial as homosexuality, I would demand that a significant representation of medical/psychiatric literature state that homosexuality is a paraphilia before placing that info in the article, or asking a vague question, much like a teaser for the 11 o'clock news. Paraphilia suggests an abnormality.
More difficult answer, and the most relevant one regarding this article is that I'm coming by again to state that the entire article needs to be rewritten. Someone, or a lot of someones, need to go to the library, access three or four textbooks about human sexuality, note what they cover--in an outline form, then find the best sources available to address the topics in the outline. Just about every thread on this page can be resolved by rewriting the article. Material in the article is not determined by who wants to see what in the article. Instead, the material in the article should summarize what the best sources have to say about homosexuality. When addressing psychiatry, that should be a review of literature from reliable sources. When about religion or science, the same. If the number of folks arguing/commenting about what the article lacks or does not, actually brought a book to the table to help rewrite the article, it would be done in short order. --Moni3 (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you say "state that homosexuality IS a paraphilia"? The conclusion of my article (and the content of the medical/psychiatric literatures) is that it is NOT. On what basis would the main page be able to say the reverse?
I have no opinion about the status of the page overall, but if you want to engage in an overhaul, I'd be happy to supply references where you would like them. I have most of the undergrad texts here.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I don't know what you mean by main page. Can you clarify that? You're not talking about the WP:Main Page, are you? If so, how is this article relevant to the Main Page?
I have very strong opinions about the overhaul of this article, but as much as I've said it needs to be done, I'm as adamant that it not be done by me. It's not a job for a single person to do. I wrote the Lesbian article and that is too much a responsibility for a single editor. First, it invalidates the collaborative aspect of this site, and secondly, information in the article is interpreted by one person only. No single person should be responsible for deciding what goes into an article like this. It needs lots of people to be informed and make intelligent decisions.
I've not read your article, obviously, although it might help not to make the point of your post a vague question. But the construction of an article this controversial, with this many hits, should be based on level, well-balanced reviews of literature obtained from the best reliable sources. While your article has been published by a reliable source, it is a recent article. I did a very basic review of psych information about lesbians and bisexual women when I wrote the Lesbian article. A review of psych info about homosexuality in general would be culled from just a massive amount of published information. How would your article factor into a section that addressed how psychiatry has dealt with homosexuality since the end of the 19th century? Of course, because it's in a peer-reviewed academic journal, there's nothing stopping you from summarizing your paper and inserting it in the article now. It wouldn't help the article any, but it's so disorganized and nearly impossible to read and comprehend now that it wouldn't make much of a difference. --Moni3 (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By "Mainpage", I meant Homosexuality, as opposed to talk:Homosexuality. I apologize if I misspoke.
Well, if you haven't ready my article, and don't intend to write on Homosexuality, then there isn't much else to discuss here.
— James Cantor (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COS refers to cases where your own publication happens to be the best source for some statement made in an article (which wasn't introduced merely for the sake of citing the publication in question): The publication, in such cases, happens to be the best solution to a problem in an article (namely, the lack of an appropriate source for some statement). This is quite different from asking on the Talk Page if there's anywhere where you can fit your article in. That's a case of using a Wikipedia article as the solution to your problem: a need to promote your own work. And you shouldn't do it. garik (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's one way to stave off improving the article. Not communicating. --Moni3 (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article. The title of this section is grossly misleading. The article confirms that homosexuality is NOT a paraphylia. Which we knew already. So, if there is somewhere a mention of this in the article already, it can be added as a source. Otherwise, I think it is not relevant to this article because homosexuality was already in the 70ies purged from the DSM because it was not seen anymore as a disorder. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith update. It wasn't a "study" in the sense that I did not collect data as part of it; Kim correctly refers to as as an article, however. I therefore changed the section header to be the complete title, which is rather neutral. I'm sure other reasonable section headers can be had, nonetheless.
If the only factoid of interest is the final conclusion, no problem; if others find the information that led to that conclusion to be of interest (and published by others), no problem either.
— James Cantor (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
James is following both the letter and spirit of our COI guideline by making a suggestion on the talk page of this article. As long as he doesn't insist on its inclusion in the article there shouldn't be any controversy in doing so. -- Atama頭 02:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given marionthelibrarion's previous, blatant violations of COI, it makes sense that his actions be watched carefully. Promoting his own article on multiple talk pages, using the login James Cantor, is within Wikipedia policy although not the best of practices. The publication itself would carry more weight if the author were not also on the journal's editorial board.
As for the contents, the article has a critical failing: It does not address diversity within the paraphilias. It assumes homosexuality is not a paraphilia, groups all other paraphilias together, and then contrasts the two, perhaps selectively. This is analogous to arguing that 'l' is not a letter because it is taller than 'e', or alternatively arguing that 'l' is a letter because it is the same height as 'k'. Both arguments are false, because they neglect the differences among the other letters. Had the paper gathered unbiased data for many separate paraphilias (and homosexuality), and showed how they clustered, it might have been useful. BitterGrey (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a peer-reviewed, secondary source published in a scholarly journal by a noted expert, there's no issue with integrating and citing it, though I wouldn't argue for rewriting the entire page based on it. I've downloaded a copy, I'll read and integrate it so there is no question that James Cantor's COI is somehow tainting anything. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I'll read and integrate it" WLU, neutral editors read articles first, and only decide whether or not to integrate them after reading. Your determination to cite an article you have not yet read shows a clear conflict of interest.

This might be a pro-CAMH conflict. CAMH has other Wikipedians on their payroll who have concealed their conflict of interest, including James Cantor. He was "MariontheLibrarion" until his COI was discovered.

On the other hand, WLU's conflict might be due to his need to get revenge against me for some reason. He has made over 100 edits[5] since this discussion started, and yet only got involved immediately after I commented. Unlike WLU, I've been involved with discussions here before. (Although it has been a while: I've been busy defending other pages from WLU, including his determination to cite Cantor and his colleagues, irrespective of whether they should be cited or not.) BitterGrey (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WLU has decided add a paragraph on James Cantor[6] and cite his article in multiple locations[7][8], instead of engaging in discussion.BitterGrey (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've integrated the article at paraphilia like I would any equally applicable reliable, secondary source. I actually don't see a place to integrate it in this page, it's much more applicable over there. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it is a primary source because it actively tries to answer a question. A review would have been limited to what other literature would discuss about this. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see the question as moot here, I don't see applicability on this page. It's more for paraphilia. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
James Cantor himself selected this as the main discussion location[9]. (Unless WLU is going to accuse me of mind-controlling Cantor again - at least this time, it wouldn't have involved a time machine as well.) I think the article would be equally primary (plus all the flaws I noted in my first post, before which WLU seemed not to care at all) with respect to both locations. The only reasons to relocate that I can see are 1) since the discussion was here, the consensus to not include the article was expressed here, not there 2) paraphilia is a less active article, so a single 'promoter' could better hope to use combative bullying tactics there, avoiding the need to actually discuss the article. BitterGrey (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
James will always try to get his next article in as many wikipedia articles as he can get. Just read those articles and make decisions accordingly. Really, it's not worth edit warring or angry posts. I think his behavior here will be an excellent case-study about Conflict Of Interest and academic POV pushing. The longer he goes on, the further he will fall eventually. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, Cantor actually kept his hands clean through this, and so far has ended up with a citation that he otherwise might never have gotten. The only risk inherent in good-Wikipedian/bad-Wikipedian games like what played out here are if WLU gets tied to Cantor in some documentable way, or if all those WLU has bullied rise up and revert WLU's broad promotion of Cantor. WLU probably won't repeat the mistake that forced Cantor to be open about his COI, and any revolution will have to overcome the mob that WLU is tied to. As a result, these outcomes are unlikely. Perhaps it is Wikipedia that will fall eventually. BitterGrey (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An update: This discussion was one of three started by James Cantor. The second was at paraphilia regarding the same journal article, and the third at COI/N regarding the first two. To try to answer a question at the COI/N discussion, I started a list of where Cantor was being named and cited using Google, and wikiblame to find who did it. My intent was to gather history and see if there were any patterns. For example, does WLU do this often?

DGG, who has stated a lack of neutrality and that he is "too involved"[10], requested the speedy deletion of that list of diffs. The discussion of that deletion (which for some reason did not occur before the deletion) is here. DGG has yet to share why he considers those diffs so dangerous. BitterGrey (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality and choice.

In the current petty political debates about homosexuality, it is easy to get lost in arguments about whether homosexuality is a 'choice' or not. It is easy to lose sight of the fact that 'choice' is not an objective scientific concept, and therefore no scientific study can ever definitely prove anything about it.

In the current revision, this sentence appears: "Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors."

'Not' is a very strong word. It is definitely not applicable to something as vaguely defined as 'choice' or 'free will'. Two references are given, however in none of these references does anything supporting that sentence appear. Rather, it is mentioned that some homosexuals do not perceive their orientation to be their choice. Choice is a subjective issue, not an objective one. I suggest the sentence be altered to this:

"Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors."

It would be great if people grew up and realized that discrimination against homosexuality is wrong even if it has nothing to do with biology and is entirely a personal choice. However, it is also dishonest to say that science can tell us what goes on in someone's mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.180.208 (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that it would be great if discrimination was more accountable to reason. It would also be great if the orientation and the act were lingually more different: While anyone might choose to engage in homosexual activities irrespective of their orientation, history and science seem quite clear that people cannot chose their orientation. BitterGrey (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the response, but you missed the point entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.180.208 (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. It has been a couple days, and no one has spoken against your suggestion, 122.58.180.208. Given the article audience, I'd be leaning toward having "not a choice" in the lead paragraph, but that is just me. Would you like to go ahead and make the change? BitterGrey (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I take the point, but I don't think the proposal is a positive change, and I think the sources do support the current wording. From the apa: "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." From the pubmed paper: "the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one's sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual." That last statement is itself sourced to "Homosexuality" and "Theoretical perspectives accounting for adolescent homosexuality." Those appear to be fairly strong and direct statements. Do we have any sources indicating that homosexuality is not a choice, or that it is scientifically untestable?   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, Mann jess, which is why I put those sources beside that line when the matter of tweaking that paragraph was being worked out in the #Religion POV in intro (RFC) discussion. I was at first going to reply to the IP, but I didn't because I didn't want to get into a debate...which I worried would happen. Debates on Wikipedia and in online forums stress me out. When I have the willpower to avoid them, I often do. I only debate when sufficiently motivated. Flyer22 (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see this being discussed. I'll retract my suggestion to make the change, and chide (as good-naturedly as possible) the above editors for not sharing their thoughts sooner. BitterGrey (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"homosexuality" in animals?

Im not denying the content or accuracy of this, the research, or anything but is there any other term for it? I mean, "Homo" generally refers to humanity and its related species right? It seems a bit silly to have animals classified as such. But if I'm missing something obvious, which may be the case, then you should probably just disregard this question. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 08:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Cite error: The named reference apahelp was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Frankowski BL; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence (2004). "Sexual orientation and adolescents". Pediatrics. 113 (6): 1827–32. doi:10.1542/peds.113.6.1827. PMID 15173519. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  3. ^ a b c d e f Robinson, B. A. (2010). "Divergent beliefs about the nature of homosexuality". Religious Tolerance.org. Retrieved September 12, 2011. Cite error: The named reference "religioustolerance" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b c d e f Cite error: The named reference apa2009 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Frankowski BL; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence (2004). "Sexual orientation and adolescents". Pediatrics. 113 (6): 1827–32. doi:10.1542/peds.113.6.1827. PMID 15173519. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  6. ^ Frankowski BL; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence (2004). "Sexual orientation and adolescents". Pediatrics. 113 (6): 1827–32. doi:10.1542/peds.113.6.1827. PMID 15173519. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  7. ^ Frankowski BL; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence (2004). "Sexual orientation and adolescents". Pediatrics. 113 (6): 1827–32. doi:10.1542/peds.113.6.1827. PMID 15173519. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  8. ^ Frankowski BL; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence (2004). "Sexual orientation and adolescents". Pediatrics. 113 (6): 1827–32. doi:10.1542/peds.113.6.1827. PMID 15173519. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  9. ^ Frankowski BL; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence (2004). "Sexual orientation and adolescents". Pediatrics. 113 (6): 1827–32. doi:10.1542/peds.113.6.1827. PMID 15173519. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homosexuality&oldid=479789300"