Talk:Environment and sexual orientation

"Men who exhibited gender non-conforming (feminine) behaviour as children are more likely to experience child sexual abuse"

As seen here, Freeknowledgecreator reverted Sxologist on material that began with "Several studies indicate that a child’s gender nonconformity, which is more common in homosexuals, may make them more desirable targets for pedophiles and child abusers." As seen here, I also reverted Sxologist. Note that the reference tweaks are intermediate edits, not edits by Sxologist.

Anyway, Sxologist, you should not WP:Edit war on this. You made a WP:BOLD edit, and your bold edit was challenged by two editors thus far.

As for your content? It does not seem that this material should be added at this point in time. There simply is no solid research on it. On your talk page, I pointed you to WP:MEDRS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. WP:SCHOLARSHIP applies in this case and so does WP:Recentism. The sources themselves, like the brainblogger.com source (which you shouldn't use), call this research new. You reworded it as "preliminary research." We should be looking to high-quality, non-WP:PRIMARY sources for something like this. You did cite this 2016 Bailey review. But, again, there simply is no solid research on this. That is why this "Does Sexual Orientation Precede Childhood Sexual Abuse? Childhood Gender Nonconformity as a Risk Factor and Instrumental Variable Analysis" source you added poses the matter as a question. It's why you added "Additional research in this area is required." If we do come to a consensus to add material on this to the article, it should be given little space and supported by a non-primary source. And, yes, there is other material in the article that is sourced to primary references, but so much of it can be easily replaced by secondary sources and tertiary sources and is better researched. Other material in the article should be trimmed or cut.

As this is a highly controversial topic, I suggest you propose significant changes on the talk page first. Wait for others to weigh in. Same goes for any other highly contentious article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

As I said when I removed it, the problem with the material, as I saw it, is that its overall relevance to the article topic, proposed environmental influences on the development of sexual orientation, was less than clear. The material might of course possibly have other problems as well. I didn't look at it that closely. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The article already talks about sexual abuse and sexual orientation, so I don't see it as off topic. But as Flyer said, it would be best to rely on secondary sources. The Bailey et al review and the meta-analysis would be fine. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the article already talks about sexual orientation in relation to child sexual abuse, but that's addressing whether or not child sexual abuse influences a gay/lesbian or bisexual orientation. The text in question is about whether or not a male child is at risk for child sexual abuse because of his gender-noncomformity. The Environment and sexual orientation article is about how the environment affects or may affect sexual orientation. Even if we want to say, well, the text in question is related to sexual orientation because childhood gender nonconformity is such a prominent indicator of sexual orientation (especially for males), it's still the case that the text is not about how environment impacts sexual orientation. It's still the case that this research is too new and including it can be argued as WP:Undue based on that alone. If this material is to be added (in a trimmed fashion), it's better suited for for the Gender variance article (which currently and briefly already addresses the topic), and the Childhood gender nonconformity article. If we agree that the scope of the Environment and sexual orientation article should also allow for content like this, since it is titled "Environment and sexual orientation", okay then. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, the Bailey et al. review explicitly makes the point that nonheterosexuals having experienced sexual abuse at higher rates may be because of their being targeted for gender non-conformity, among other explanations. It's the last paragraph under "Recruitment/seduction". I said it was on topic because it is about the claim that this aspect of the environment influences sexual orientation. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

You and I have discussed the Bailey source for other material. I've read all of the source and recall the piece you're pointing to. I'm simply stating that this is new research needing further investigation, isn't something that is stated as a definitive reason, and that the text in question is about whether or not a male child is at risk for child sexual abuse because of his gender-noncomformity rather than how environment impacts (influences) sexual orientation. It could be worded differently to better fit with the notion that child sexual abuse influences sexual orientation, such as noting that researchers have looked into this aspect as a result of that notion. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I found the full text and an additional source. The full text is available here: Xu and Zheng (2015). Page 9-10 "CGNC and CSA" reports that heterosexual men with gender non-conforming childhood (CGNC) behavior were 41% more likely to report child sexual abuse than heterosexual met who did not. Homosexual men reporting CGNC behavior were 19% more likely to report child abuse than homosexual men who did not. Gay/bi men were significantly more CGNC than heterosexual men. For both heterosexual and non-hetero women, CGNC was not a significant predictor for CSA. Additionally, Roberts et al. (2012) reports "We identify gender nonconformity before age 11 years as a risk indicator for physical, sexual, and psychological abuse in childhood". They state: "our study cannot determine the causal relationship between abuse and gender nonconformity; in other words, the extent to which nonconformity is a risk factor for abuse versus an indicator of abuse". But the other sources cited on this wiki page have not determined the casual relationship between sexual abuse and orientation. Does that mean they should be excluded too? An existing citation on the wiki page, Holmes (1998), touched on the hypothesis that gender non-conformity precedes abuse so the theory was put out long ago and there is research to back it up. I understand additional research would be great, but, this page (rightly) includes theoretical models that have been criticized, such as Bem's exotic become erotic theory. Bem relied on decades old convenience sample data, not his own, and appeared to contradict the data in many cases. Wouldn't a theory of CGNC preceding molestation of boys (with relevant data to back it) be considered up to standard? I would argue Bailey/Xu/Roberts/Holmes are at least reason enough to include the statement that there is evidence CGNC is a factor which may lead to CSA among men, as potentially part of the reason there is an increased rate among homosexual men. --Sxologist (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Including Bem's research is not the same. It's been around for a long time now and is covered in secondary and tertiary sources. Plenty of academic sources, such as this 2010 "The SAGE Handbook of Identities" (reprint) source, from Sage Publications, pages 177 to 178, and this 2017 "The Psychology of Human Sexuality" source, from John Wiley & Sons, that cover "exotic becomes erotic." That is why it's very WP:Due to include it in this article. We don't exclude a theory or hypothesis simply because it's been criticized. Whether or not to include such material should be based on our WP:Due policy. Even content that is generally considered fringe by academics and falls under our WP:Fringe category may get space in a Wikipedia article or have a Wikipedia article about it. Also note that the "Psychology of Human Sexuality" source states that Bem's theory received a lot of praise, which is something that should also be noted on Wikipedia, including in this Wikipedia article.

If you propose text that doesn't give this relatively new research undue weight and sticks to using only Bailey et al. as the source, unless covered in another secondary source or tertiary source that can be placed alongside it, I can agree to including mention of it in the article. Unless a reliable source states it, connecting Holmes (1998) to having thrown the notion out there is WP:Synthesis.

Beyond this, I'm for the article being cleaned up so that it barely uses (or doesn't use) primary sources. By this, I mean replacing primary sourced material with secondary sources or tertiary sources. For content we consider cutting, we should keep the WP:Preserve policy in mind. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

On a side note: As mentioned here, I never saw an academic state that Bem argues that people aren't born with a sexual orientation, like Justin J. Lehmiller does (in the "The Psychology of Human Sexuality" source). They speak of Bem talking of how people are predisposed to have a certain sexual orientation; but Justin J. Lehmiller does mention that aspect. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

"In this address, I outline my “Exotic-Becomes-Erotic" theory of sexual orientation (Bem, 1996) , which provides the same basic account for both

opposite-sex and same-sex erotic desire—and for both men and women. It proposes that biological variables do not code for sexual orientation per ::::::::se but for childhood temperaments that influence a child’s preferences for sextypical or sex-atypical activities." From "Exotic Becomes Erotic:

Explaining the Enigma of Sexual Orientation", freely available ::::::::here. If someone writes something like that it seems perfectly obvious that he believes sexual orientation is not innate. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

As noted by Lehmiller, he speaks of biological predisposition. And biological predisposition concerns innateness. Lehmiller notes that Bem's theory "links biological and environmental influences." Also, the "The SAGE Handbook of Identities" source relays that Bem "does not intend his model as an absolute prescription for all individuals, but rather as a modal or average explanation. He suggests that biological variables (these could be genetic, and/or development[al]) affect early temperament, which in turn influence the development of preferences for sex typical or atypical play. Such preferences lead in turn to feeling different from opposite or same-sex peers. He further postulates that individuals develop attractions to those from who they feel different during childhood. Thus, early gender interests lead to later physiological or sexual attractions." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Sxologist, I agree with Flyer22 Frozen regarding the sexual abuse material. With Bem's theory, while it did get some positive attention as Lehmiller states and Flyer22 Frozen pointed out for balance's sake, I do want to emphasize that Lehmiller also said, the validity of this model has been questioned on numerous grounds and scientists have largely rejected it. I think Lehmiller overall presents it in a balanced fashion and as Flyer22 Frozen said, we should present it in a balanced way. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, given these assessments I am happy to concur. Thank you to all for the time put into checking this. Flyer, regarding your statement: "If you propose text that doesn't give this relatively new research undue weight and sticks to using only Bailey et al. as the source, unless covered in another secondary source or tertiary source that can be placed alongside it, I can agree to including mention of it in the article". I'm just seeking clarification as to what you mean here. Does this mean a valid secondary source would need to refer to Bailey (which seems more like an analysis)? Or Xu? Of course, I'm not expecting to find a current source that will support this but seeking clarification for the future. Thanks --Sxologist (talk) 05:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't mean that a valid secondary source would need to refer to Bailey. I mean another secondary source that speaks on the topic. This, or a tertiary source, could be placed alongside Bailey et al. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I have three sources in sum now. This study here quite carefully discusses the alternate pathway, of 'nascent sexual orientation' and 'gender non conformity' being a cause for child maltreatment. It provides a good criticism of the 'child abuse as a cause for sexual orientation' model, and it does refer to earlier research to draw such conclusions rather than just a theory out of thin air. The study of course directly measures the measurement between the two due to limitations of the data set. The aforementioned Bailey review also quite nicely lays out how gay teenagers, due to lack of available partners their own age and for fear of being outed, will look elsewhere for early sexual experiences. This means they are at risk for older individuals to do so, and that the ability for heterosexual men to do the same is reduced since most heterosexual females have boys their own age to experiment with. I think thats a very important critique of the causation model since research qualifies any illegal sexual contact between younger and older as abuse, but the orientation is often pretty well determined by then (of course, these relationships are still inappropriate). It's pretty unlikely heterosexual teenagers head to the internet to find an older guy to experiment with. Of course, it also touches on non-conformity as a contributing factor in earlier childhood. Finally, at the bottom of page 404 and start of 405 this T. Sweet 2012 paper, it refers to this causation issue: "A more likely explanation is that as children some of these individuals may have declared their sexual preference or exhibited subtle behavioral cues that identified them as more vulnerable and thus targets for sexual abuse by predators. In fact, previous studies have reported that many LGB adults remember being “gender atypical” as children and reported physical and sexual abuse at the hands of peers and family members because of this difference."... they refer to earlier research from 2006 and 1998 indicating gender atypicality is a precursor to abuse. --Sxologist (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Lisa M. Diamond text

Freeknowledgecreator, regarding this, this, this and this, I don't see that the Lisa M. Diamond text is needed. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, but remove it if you like. I can see that more editors oppose than support it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Freeknowledgecreator, I know it's been removed, but as as a point of interest, everyone has heard of the rare case of women going off men after a nasty divorce, but do we hear stories of straight men 'going gay' after a nasty divorce with a woman? Unlikely. The inclusion of the quote "contradict conventional models of sexual orientation as a fixed and uniformly early-developing trait" is a poor use of quote mining (not to mention unrelated to environment and sexual orientation?), since Lisa M. Diamond has also co-authored articles with J. Michael Bailey which state that most exclusive homosexuals show very little change in their attraction. Diamond cites examples of bisexually oriented women realizing they are attracted to women at a much later age (usually after in an unsatisfied relationship with men), but rarely gives the example of exclusive lesbians suddenly liking men. Diamond has made rather broad proclamations about homosexuality based on her research of lesbians (e.g. in a Ted talk), yet appears to ignore her other work with Bailey showing men don't change their sexuality. --Sxologist (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Prenatal environment?

Just curious why the prenatal environment (womb) doesn’t have a place here? I know it has its own page. I’m guessing there might be related policies as to why. From what I gather, when we talk about the difference between genetic vs environmental causes of sexual orientation, the ‘environmental’ factors also include prenatal ones? Sxologist (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Prenatal environment is currently mentioned in the lead and briefly in the "Childhood gender nonconformity" and "Family influences" sections. Fraternal birth order (a subsection in the "Family influences" section), for example, clearly concerns the prenatal environment. Discussion of the prenatal environment isn't off-limits in this article. It's just in sections that it's related to rather than having its own section. The way an article is set up can have no deep reason; it can be just because that's how the article evolved due to edits from various editors over the years. More about the prenatal environment can obviously be added to this article, but we should keep in mind that, per WP:Summary style, most of what is in the Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation article shouldn't be duplicated here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Urban setting (Laumann 1994)

Under "urban setting" it is written: "Laumann and his colleagues found that homosexuality was positively correlated with urbanization of the place of residence at age 14.", and cites page 308. However, this appears to be a case of quote mining (and lack of proper citation) since the page appears to talk more about how homosexual people migrate to cities, or feel more comfortable to be open about their sexuality in an urban environment. The book does not appear to make a claim of homosexuality being correlated with urbanization "at (or by) age 14"? The hypothesis of homosexuality as a result of being raised in an urban environment was exactly that, a hypothesis. This area probably needs editing to actually support Laumann's actual findings, that higher numbers of homosexual people live in urban environments, and that this was hypothesized to be due to migration and (potentially?) due to being raised in an urban environment. I am sure there is more recent research on this topic, and since original hypotheses are not up to standard this seems like the personal interpretations of an editor. --Sxologist (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

You can certainly adjust the text to match the source more closely, including adding the suggestion that gay people simply move to cities and/or can be open about their orientation. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Tomeo/Temper (2001) under sexual abuse

While I think the mention of the Tomeo, Donald I. Templer et al. study is fine being in there, could the criticisms could be adjusted and trimmed for clarities sake? The main criticisms of the study are the fact that they switch 'sexual experience' for the word 'molestation' in the form vs. publication which could be moved up higher. And their rather dubious combination of both adolescent experience AND child sexual abuse, without actually indicating the ages of the boys or differentiating which were genuine child molestations OR which were teenagers who had relationships with older men due to lack of available partners their age. Considering the fact that between 68%-85% (it's unclear) of the men reported already knowing they were gay when they had this sexual experience this indicates that the vast bulk of men were teenagers not children. It has further been noted there is actually possibility of fraud in the data considering all the numbers in tables didn't even add up, and Templers connections with white nationalist conferences because of his highly questionable race and IQ studies (this is all in the current citations but not quite so clearly mentioned in the wiki article). Funnily enough, Templer published another follow up to try and expand on his work, yet when referring to his 2001 study in the introduction they wrote: "that 56% of gay men" reported molestation, which is completely at odds with the 46% in the study. Their concern for accuracy was shocking. Face palm. Sxologist (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Update: I will post some suggested changes here, when I have some time, and get consensus first instead of just editing it. --Sxologist (talk) 08:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I have been in contact with Ken Zucker and it sounds like this study is being considered for retraction. Should we remove it anyways since it's practically bunk? Having a Donald I. Templer study here is like including a Paul Cameron study. Templer compared his fellow white supremacists to Galileo. --Sxologist (talk) 07:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Anybody? --Sxologist (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Frozen: I know you don't like being pinged but just want to check on this. What do you think about removing Tomeo/Templer paragraph? And second, it could also be worth replacing the Holmes citation with a more up to date one. E.g. this 2012 Harvard study has a reasonably good opening which reads: "Epidemiological studies find a positive association between childhood maltreatment and same-sex sexuality in adulthood, with lesbians and gay men reporting 1.6 to 4 times greater prevalence of sexual and physical abuse than heterosexuals". Their study referred to the higher quality studies, so 1.6 to 4 times is more credible than "up to 7 times more likely" considering the quality of the research Holmes had to rely on back in 1998. --Sxologist (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest editing the article with whatever you have in mind for this, and if we feel the need to tweak it and/or revert and discuss further, then we can do that. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Boys reared as girls, worth a mention?

"The near-perfect quasi-experiment" has been frequently referred to by J. Michael Bailey and others as some evidence against social-environmental factors playing a predominant role. I.e. men born between 1960 and 2000 who had botched circumcisions or accidents, and surgeons altered their geneitalia to be female. They were then reared as girls, and in all 7 documented cases in the literature they grew up to be attracted to women in line with the heterosexual attraction of their birth sex. It's well laid out on page 72 and page 73 of Bailey et al. 2016. This is briefly mentioned in the 'biology and sexual orientation' page, but it has clear implications for evidence regarding the social-environmental factors of male sexuality. --Sxologist (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems like it could be added. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

On the topic of one gender to another, this article can also include material on some transgender people reporting a change in their sexual orientation after going on hormones. This is currently reported on in the Transgender sexuality article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

That's quite a complex area and there is a lot of conflicting research. It's well known that testosterone makes FTM more horny in general, and if they stop taking hormones or reduce doses their sexual attraction dissipates. I note that some of those citations on the Transgender sexuality article mention nothing of sexual orientation so I do think some of those citations are poorly sourced. Sxologist (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

"Family Influences" poor citations

@Crossroads: Just bringing your attention to the family influences section.

First, there is reference to a Taiwan study, which is original research and I know has been criticized because everyone in the sample had an existing "adjustment disorder".

Second, the introductory paragraph also points to the original Danish study by Frisch, and says "Some researchers think this may indicate that childhood family experiences are important determinants to homosexuality". Rather funny since the paper is only able to infer things about those who homosexually marry, and it says nothing about it causing homosexuality when it could in fact mean people are more likely to express non-heterosexual identities. So that part needs to go.

But no doubt it's worth replacing these areas with coverage of the familial environment with citation to the broader findings... especially since family environment is a very old theoretical explanation around the formation of sexual orientation. The history around absent father/ overbearing mother as causes for it. This could require a more significant area?

The Bailey Review has a reasonably good area covering the family environment starting on page 83, so maybe we can update some of this section based on the reflection there? --Sxologist (talk) 07:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The article you link to represents only one opinion about the issue and much of what it says could be criticized. There would be little point to trying to enter into criticism of it, but it is worth noting that content added to the article should reflect the wide range of scholarly literature, not just one paper. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I did not say everything should be replaced with Bailey. There are actually two citations about familial environment in the introduction which are not used in the body. I quite clearly say this area should touch on all areas of the theoretical models which would clearly not be covered in Bailey. As the heading states, my main criticism is of the primary research which is used to make unsupported statements. The point was Bailey covered most of the theoretical models around the social environmental causes of homosexuality, so it is a good starting point to cover all the proposed ideas. --Sxologist (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Freeknowledgecreator: since you appear relatively knowledgable on the topics surrounding familial impact on sexual orientation, I would actually appreciate your help in revamping this area of the article. You could take a look at the Bailey review starting at page 83 onwards. It is a pretty carefully crafted article that makes no grand or sweeping statements. We should be committed to improving the article rather than leaving it stagnant with primary research and the conclusions from the abstracts of papers, or worse, the conclusions a drive by IP editor decides to make from research. --Sxologist (talk) 10:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not utterly dismissing the Bailey paper or saying that it should not be taken into account. I also make no claim to being any kind of authority on "the topics surrounding familial impact on sexual orientation". However, I am familiar with some of the works cited by Bailey and his colleagues. In my opinion, quite different conclusions could be drawn from those works than the conclusions Bailey and co draw. Bailey and co's conclusions might well look authoritative to a casual reader. However, if you are well-informed enough, you can see how the literature they cite could suggest very different conclusions. Actually, I would love to explain why I think Bailey and co are wrong in some of their conclusions, but I know better than to try. Wikipedia is hardly the place for it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

That’s the reason I asked. If you know of some common explanations they should be included here. If there’s more recent reviews of the research regarding familial factors then should we consider including them? Obviously that means including the arguments against those. The current paragraphs are messy. Sxologist (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

You shouldn't use the term "original research" to refer to primary sources. That term, on Wikipedia, overwhelmingly refers to violations of WP:NOR; that is, research or WP:Synthesis that is original to a Wikipedia editor. Using it otherwise will confuse people. But I see no reason to bring back the Taiwan study.

As for whether we should reflect the wide range of scholarly literature, not just one paper, we are supposed to be based on recent secondary sources per WP:PSTS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and WP:MEDRS. Older and primary sources hence do not necessarily need to be reflected. As for the Bailey review, we should not downplay it or hesitate to use it unless a source of equal quality contradicts it. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry what I did in fact mean was original research. Quite a lot of the sources are original research, e.g. the danish study which was removed for urban environment but reminds in familial factors. Thanks for clarifying regarding Bailey. Sxologist (talk) 06:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The sources are original research? Are you using the term "original research" differently than Wikipedia uses it? What Crossroads means regarding how the term is used on Wikipedia is what WP:NOR states. WP:NOR states, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." It then clarifies with a note: "By 'exists', the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

As for older sources, WP:MEDDATE has solid guidance, including not giving undue weight to recent sources. The literature on sexual orientation doesn't produce many reviews or even a lot of reviews. So the "may need to be relaxed" aspect of WP:MEDDATE applies to this area. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Sxologist, sources can't be original research in the Wikipedia sense. While off-wiki that phrase is sometimes used to refer to individual research papers/studies, on-wiki it is always used in line with what Flyer22 Frozen quoted above. You shouldn't use the term to refer to Wikipedians call "primary sources". People will get confused, and you may end up accused of misrepresenting what you removed - e.g., "this is not original research, this is just relaying what this study found." While original research is never allowed, primary sources sometimes are. See WP:PSTS. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks both for clarifying, I will do some additional reading of the rules surrounding that so it’s more clear. Sxologist (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Criticism paragraph under "Childhood gender nonconformity"

I would argue the last paragraph under childhood gender non conformity should probably be updated. It criticizes the bias of the CGNC model, and relies on the 2003 writings of the "Scholar" Lorene Gottschalk, a self described radical feminist (TERF) who is highly vocal about her disagreements with transgenderism in general. Reading the paper, her whole argument stems from her radical feminist belief that we are all born with fluid brains and that there's no such thing as people being born feminine or masculine. Adding "scholar" infront of her name doesn't make them more credible. There are likely much more up to date writings about bias, including in reviews of the research. Gottschalk refers to a few studies from the 1970's in terms of bias, yet conveniently skims over all of the work that was done closer to her time of writing that. There have been numerous studies since 2003 which have aimed to minimize bias including by surveying family members as opposed to the individual. Note, I am not saying her criticism should be excluded, but too much criticism of the CGNC research is resting on the opinions of Gottschalk. --Sxologist (talk) 03:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

As you know, childhood gender nonconformity often correlating with sexual orientation is well-established, especially for men. So we definitely need to consider any criticism of it in the context of WP:Due weight. If including criticism of it, it shouldn't be much, should be from non-primary sources, and it's best not to just include Gottschalk's criticism. If Gottschalk is the only criticism, that is clearly a WP:Due weight concern. And what is done at this article regarding that material should also be done at the Childhood gender nonconformity article (since Gottschalk's criticism has a section there).

On a side note: Not all radical feminists can be described as "TERFs." And per this BLP RfC and this category discussion, it's best to not call a BLP subject a TERF (except for minor exceptions). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't call her a TERF simply for being a rad-fem, but on the basis that she helped co-author a book with Sheila Jeffrey's which attacked sexual orientation and transgenderism. Gottschalk and Jeffrey's referred to anyone who detransitioned as 'survivors', and insists on using male pronouns to refer to trans women and female ones to refer to trans men. It's outlined in an article from the New Yorker. So, is it possible we can just shorten the criticism and follow it with the methods used to minimize bias? Bailey wrote one response in 2009 to a criticism regarding video, which covered the volume of research on it. Although there's probably something more up to date if I look harder. I think Bailey pretty much acknowledges where bias may play into it through all of his papers. --Sxologist (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Flyer, I have updated the paragraph. If you'd like I can probably add another sentence from the Bailey review which covered the vast body of research on CGNC. --Sxologist (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Introduction sentence

I'm not sure: "They view sexual orientation, unlike sexual orientation identity, as not being a choice" is even legible for the average reader. Should it be included in the opening? It's confusing. I think it makes more sense to have a short sentence after it saying this differs from how one identifies, or simply leave it to the body. --Sxologist (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that the previous wording ("Unlike sexual orientation identity, they do not view sexual orientation as a choice") was ungrammatical. It implies that "sexual orientation identity" is a thing that has a view of whether sexual orientation is a choice. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand that, but the new sentence requires more than a double take. My eye goes to "as not being a choice" and back to 'sexual orientation identity' and then is confused about what part is really meant. My point is that it is not legible for the average reader. The page is about sexual orientation and thus doesn't need to say 'but by the way orientation identity is a choice' in the intro because the average person has no clue what that means. --Sxologist (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Remove the reference to sexual orientation identity entirely if you like. I don't care. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this and this? The grammar was better before this change. I fail to see how "Unlike sexual orientation identity, they do not view sexual orientation as a choice." was an issue or poor grammar. Reading the original wording for the sentence again, from a different line of thinking, I can see how "Unlike sexual orientation identity, they do not view sexual orientation as a choice" could have been better worded. But I don't think that most readers would have read it in the way it was recently read. It was there for years, and readers knew, for example, that "they" was referring to "scientists." But, anyway, like I stated with this note, since sexual identity is a choice and is often conflated with sexual orientation, this should be mentioned in the lead and lower. It is already mentioned lower, although that section needs tweaking, which I can easily do with reliable academic sources. The lead should summarize the article per WP:Lead. That stated, I see no need to focus on this right now. First, the body of the article should be fixed up and then we can focus on any needed tweaking of the lead. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

And sexual identity has to do with the environment for reasons noted in the Sexual identity article. Sexual identity being conflated with sexual orientation is an issue with regard to, for example, demographics of sexual orientation. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

A reader could probably guess what "Unlike sexual orientation identity, they do not view sexual orientation as a choice" was intended to mean, but that doesn't alter the fact that it is ungrammatical. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Like I stated, and as indicated by Sxologist, the new wording wasn't an improvement, though, at least not much of one. Or maybe Sxologist did view the new wording as a slight improvement and didn't bring up the previous wording due to not having paid much attention to it before you edited it. Again, we can come back to this aspect later and word the matter better then. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Seeking clarification re: Family influences

I still think the family influences area can be drastically improved...

Question 1: It opens with "Some researchers think this may indicate that childhood family experiences are important determinants to homosexuality" and links to Frisch (one researcher, not some) whose research provides "prospective evidence that childhood family experiences are important determinants of heterosexual and homosexual marriage decisions in adulthood". I think this could at least be supported by a larger coverage of the wider research, indicating an impact on sexual orientation as opposed to homosexual marriage. Relying on Frisch and claiming "some" is a bit weak considering there are actual proponents of the environmental theory. Is this sentence with one citation appropriate?

Question 2: I wonder if the paragraph at least open with a statement about the history of the theoretical models (absent father, coddling mother) arising from psychoanalytic hypotheses, primarily through the lens of therapists observations rather than testing? The 1981 Bell et al review was believed to largely have dispelled these hypotheses as the primary cause of non-heterosexuality (at least in men), and as the Bailey review states "when other variables, especially childhood gender nonconformity were covaried in path analyses, the causal paths between parent-child relationship characteristics and child’s sexual orientation were either nonsignificant or quite weak."

Question 3: Is it useful to include researchers opinions about why parental relationships may be more strained among non-heterosexuals?

Quoting Bailey 2016: >>>"First, pre-homosexual children tend to be relatively gender nonconforming, and this may some- times strain relationships with parents—especially fathers (Kane, 2006). Second, on average, homosexual men score slightly higher than heterosexual men on trait neuroticism (d = 0.20; Lippa, 2005a). Assuming the neuroticism differ- ences are apparent during childhood, they could contrib- ute to differences in negative interactions between fathers and sons. Neuroticism is also related to biased recall of negative events (Larsen, 1992); thus, the retrospective dif- ferences in relationship quality could partly reflect mem- ory biases. Third, on average, same-sex attraction in males is associated with elevated traits of separation anxiety in childhood (VanderLaan, Gothreau, Bartlett, & Vasey, 2011; Vasey et al., 2011; Zucker, Bradley, & Sullivan, 1996), and this could further strain father-and-son relationships. Of course, there are many other possibilities that are not causally related to sexual orientation, including the pos- sibility that parents of pre-homosexual children are differ- ent from those of pre-heterosexual children in ways that affect the parent-child relationship."

Inb4 "don't just rely on the Bailey review", I know, but six writers of that review include (arguably) the top researchers on sexual orientation in the states, and have examined the research their entire lives. They all hold some differing opinions on sexual orientation so it's not just one researcher.

Please note: I'm not suggesting we replace everything currently in there. I am suggesting things are expanded with more perspectives. If there's been large meta analysis which takes into account these confounding factors and regarding familial environment, let's see it. As the Bailey review states, there is little scientific research available which has shown anything more than a casual relationship between familial factors and sexual orientation in men (a little more so in women, which could be included?). So far this section mostly provides some original research with too few academic interpretations of it? --Sxologist (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)