Talk:Sexual orientation

Merge causes

I added a link to the article on causes of sexual orientation, which raises the question of whether these two articles are too similar and perhaps should be merged into a single article.

---

This article is clear and uncontroversial. The "causes of" article is incomplete. Ed Poor

Coot vs Kinsey

I don't have it before me, but Quentin Crisp says somewhere, I think in The Naked Civil Servant', written well before the complete politicization of the issue, that there are two kinds of male homosexuals, which he calls "coot queer" and "Kinsey queer". The first category,"coot queer", to which Crisp emphatically belonged, is entranced with the male body and its appurtenances, and loves everything about romancing other men, while the "Kinsey queer" is more oriented to multiple partners, anonymous sex, etc. Please excuse me if this is considered rude to mention, but I thought the distinction was most interesting as regards the question of permanent, inborn orientation.

I just found a quote, but I was sure that he said more than this:

" I knew he was Kinsey-Queer rather than coot-queer. He merely associated with homosexuals because they brought their love by the pound."

Ortolan88 19:54 Jul 22, 2002 (PDT)

---

This is a very interesting reference. It would be nice if you could, if there is any basis to the Coot portion of your comment other than being something in the British movie—to give further insight into this comment. I’m assuming you are referring to the famous Kinsey that did many studies on homosexuality. I am personally a Coot Queer as you have described it, it would be nice to know if Coot was an Anthropologist or not. Thanks. It is nice to hear of a British movie with Queer content from 1975 winning many awards.

Most vs some

The assertion that "most" bisexuals have only one partner at a time asserts a specific percentage (>50%) of monogamy which may or may not exist for persons of any orientation. The stigma against non-monogamy makes it difficult to tell the actual prevalence of monogamy of any sexual orientation.

NPOV

This is completely one sided. There needs to be more information concerning the environmental influences but I don't have the time to add right now.

Pew Global Attitudes Project

The information in the Wiki article was incorrect, so I edited the section on the Pew Global Attitudes Project after seeing that Canada and the US had (in the wiki article) the same numbers for support of homosexuality. Canada is much more accepting of homosexuality than the United States, and is one of the four countries in the world that allows same-sex marriage. The actual numbers from the Pew Project showed much lower support for homosexuality in the United States. I have edited the Wiki page to show the correct information.

The PDF file for these numbers can be accessed at http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/185.pdf. The homosexuality results table is on page 114.

Cheers! Allison L.

New revision

“ The London-based DJ Sandra D has been known to have an extremely good perception of sexual orientation, also known as "Gaydar". ”

I think it should be deleted. It doesnt seem vandalism or I would delete it myself, what it does seem is biased.

You're quite right, and indeed I went immediately to delete it myself, although fortunately another editor had got there first.

Just a few hints here - and I am guessing you are new to Wikipedia, so please accept my apologies if you are not!

Don't be deterred from deletion by thinking that you can only delete vandalism. You can delete anything, although deleting material that has been there for some time and survived the attention of other editors is not generally a good idea unless you are absolutely sure there is a serious problem with it (if you're not sure, but have nagging doubts, it's generally better to re-write to address those doubts, rather than just delete).

In this particular case, someone was clearly trying to draw attention to the DJ Sandra D. It's quite common to find such attempts. They are not quite vandalism in the destructive sense, but they don't help Wikipedia, for the simple reason that they don't add anything to a reader's understanding of the subject. (In this case, someone interested in knowing about sexual orientation is not given any help by reading about Sandra D.)

Finally - did you know you can sign your contributions to Talk pages like this one? See WP:SIGN. Barnabypage (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Other categories than gender important?

"Some scholars of sexology, anthropology and history have argued that social categories such as heterosexual and homosexual are not universal[citation needed]. Different societies may consider other criteria to be more significant than sex, including the respective age of the partners, whether partners assume an active or a passive sexual role, and their social status." I asked for a citation for the first sentence of this paragraph, because while I believe the statement to be quite true, it needs verification.

Barbaree, Bogaert, & Seto, (1995) write that "sexual orientation is defined by (1) the ability of a certain class of stimuli to evoke sexual arousal and desire in the individual, (2) the persons or objects toward which sexual behavior and activity are directed by the individual, and (3) the persons or objects depicted in fantasies and cognitions" (p. 358)." (from: Sexual reorientation therapy for pedophiles: Practices and controversies. In L. D. & R. D. McAnulty (Eds.), The psychology of sexual orientation, behavior, and identity: A handbookGreenwood)

Theirs is a much wider and more inclusive definition of sexual orientation - one which seems to be gaining quite a bit of influence. Would it perhaps be appropriate to add a sentence or two about this way of defining it? I will make no changes in the article until this has been thoroughly discussed here, of course. Persistentswede (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverting edits by Nick Levinson

A 1995 study by few scientists does not supersede 2010, 2008 APA statements. That would be WP:UNDUE. Plus Nick Levinson failed to quote the applicable sections. Phoenix of9 02:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Your revision of the 28th last at 10:29p (22:09) is a wholesale edit of which you explained exactly one item, the explanation having almost nothing to do with the rest of your massive edit. For example, I checked an organization's website, corrected the organization's name in the article, you made it wrong again, I checked its website again, and your edit is still wrong. Old research if still valid is not displaced by a new position statement. Nor need it be quoted when the description of it is accurate; copyright issues may be relevant. I realize you are passionate but that is not ground for deleting what you don't like. Please restore. And, in the future, for each edit you propose, please consider it on its own merits. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You can quote a paragraph, there are no copyright issues there, that sounds like a stupid excuse. Much newer APA reviews (and they are reviewing studies there, their data doesnt come outta thin air) and statements which are contrary to those old studies replace those studies. Phoenix of9 22:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No, positions don't replace scientific studies. Look at publications' authors' guidelines for peer-reviewed scientific journals as to what may be cited in a bibliography. Organizational positions are not generally considered citable science in themselves, if ever. They are politically and professionally important but not replacements for research reports even when new and even when based on reviewing science. There are systemic reviews in journals that, as articles, pass peer review; but I don't think you've cited one and I don't know if there even is one on this subject.

I already quoted most of the paragraph on one item from the 1995 material. The amount I think you want me to copy risks violating copyright. I don't think more needs to be quoted in this case to fairly represent what the original says on point and for readers to understand it. If you want to add to the quotations without exceeding fair use limits, that's up to you, but don't delete because I didn't quote more. A major purpose of WP is to let people follow up what's interesting, not to put everything in there, and that's why there are references and links.

You haven't replied justifying your other edits, so I guess you don't object to my reverting your reversion, which I did, except for accepting Orientalmoons' subsequent edit and your one subsequent edit and streamlining the first sentence a bit. Even though I don't entirely agree with everything in those edits, they don't require reversion. But it took a lot of labor. Please don't do wholesale multi-item edits without justifying each item (if some items are similar a single justification will suit them).

Thank you.

Nick Levinson (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

testosterone excess as imbalance in article

Undue weight is being given to the testosterone results. It has validity but it's not alone. Reductionism is not always valid. No major psychotherapy organization asserts that testosterone is all that determines sexual orientation. We should carry reasonably credible scientific reports of other explanations, integrated into the body and lead, and not negatively. Not all scholars and authors need to agree with each other to be in the article. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of changes on a user talk page

Please see User_talk:JamesBWatson#Sexual_Orientation for comments on some changes recently made in this article. Timothy Perper (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Inserted changes in biological determination of orientation

I revised the sentences under debate (see previous entry, immediately above) to make it clear that they represent the viewpoint of certain thinkers and theoreticians of orientation rather than undoubted fact. I also corrected some non-factual statements. This is an area of intense and widespread debate in sexology, and the article must not, in my opinion, assert one view as factual. This debate might escalate into an edit war in the time-honored fashion of Wikipedia, but eventually the article MUST adopt an NPOV approach to these issues. My changes move the article closer to NPOV, and I will revert changes very quickly when they are made by edit warriors. The literature on this subject is immense, and the article must reflect the complexity of these debates. Anyone wishing to start an edit war -- which I sincerely hope does not happen -- had best Google a variety of terms and concepts, including "reparative therapy." We must achieve a balance, neutral and comprehensive, about the issues under discussion. Timothy Perper (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted it; if you want to reverse the meaning of a sourced paragraph, you'll need to source such an extensive modification at least as reliably as it currently is. "Neutral" does not mean "gives equal prominence to all points of view", but "properly reflects the consensus in litterature". — Coren ^(talk) 01:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There was no reversal of meaning. I merely pointed out that the paragraph was written -- the way I got it, since I didn't write the original -- with a specific viewpoint, called "biological determinism" or "biological reductionism." I added a reference for the biological determinist idea of gender, and will add a bunch more in the future -- maybe (see below). I also added some corrective references to reparative therapy for "homosexuality" (Spitzer, Nicolosi).

Now, the next issue. You're starting to edit war. Don't. If you keep it up, I won't even bother answering you, because it's a waste of my time. I have a doctorate in biology, and have been publishing scholarly work in human sexuality since the 1980s, and have been on the editorial boards of a number of scholarly journals of human sexuality. I'm an expert. The appropriate response to someone like me is to say, "Hey, thanks, let's put some additional references in." But Wikipedia is not known for its courtesy. Maybe I'll add more references -- Michael Ruse, Walter Bockting, David Hunter, a whole bunch of people. Maybe. Or maybe not.

This article is an absolute MESS. It's confused, references are missing, it contradicts itself, and it's badly written. If you or anyone else want some expert help, I can offer such help. But when you simply start reverting without thinking or reading, then it isn't worth my time. What you do next is up to you. What I do will be determined by your response. You want some expert help, fine. You want to delete things, I'll leave you strictly alone to waste time -- but not mine.

Timothy Perper (talk) 08:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I won't argue with any of you. You can waste time, but do it on your own time. Timothy Perper (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not an "expert" with signs of childly behaviour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Coren#Reverts_for_Sexual_Orientation_article), who just simply comes and changes (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sexual_orientation&diff=353309941&oldid=353265470) a 2007 report of highly credible and reputable body like Royal College of Psychiatrists prepared by Professor Michael King (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mental-health-sciences/staff/king.htm). You came up with a 1971 book published in those days when homosexuality was still considered a mental ilness and one (debunked: Conversion therapy#Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation?) medical study as references for your exceptional claims, which is prohibited due to WP:REDFLAG, Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Scholarship, Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Summarize scientific consensus and Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Use up-to-date evidence. Your expertise and contributions to the science is extremely limited (http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/9230/isiperper.png) in spite of professor King for instance, whose work is cited dozen times more in major reputable peer-reviewed journals than yours (http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/7623/isiking.png). Please stop waste our time and read a Wikipedia policies thoroughly at first. --Destinero (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You could try to find an updated CV of mine. Stop the personal attacks. Timothy Perper (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Timothy I had to revert you again. I see your perspective. I think that we can agree that there is more than one perspective here, and research that says different things. The prevailing research seems to show that sexual orientation is biologically determined. The section that you edited says that. Your edits weaken that statement by qualifying and changing what the sources that are cited actually say. If you have a different POV that is supported by citations, then another section with the alternative view should be stated. Weakening and changing perspective you don't agree with isn't the solution. We are not trying to write an article that has only one view. The article should show the span of competing views accurately.

If there are substantial rewrites or changes in a controversial article, then discussing and proposing those changes in advance always helps. A draft of changes discussed, and then put in the article afterword is usually more effective. Yes, you are allowed to be bold and make your changes without getting feedback from other editors. That works well in an article that has few people watching. In controversial articles where every change is monitored by dozens of editors, it nearly always fails. Keep in mind that the people you are dealing with are largely editors. They will always view you adding your opinion based on your substantial expertise as Original Research.

Getting back to the article, you added a portion on reparative therapy. Since the entire previous section cites experts saying that Sexual orientation is not a choice, and not the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development, and then you suggest reparative therapy, that is confusing. In a follow on paragraph, discussing alternative perspectives or theories of changing sexual orientation could be done. Atom (talk) 08:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I support Timothy Perper's comments about this article. By the way, the American Psychological Association does not say that sexual orientation is biologically determined. It says in its pamphlet about the issue that "Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles" - that contradicts the article, which implies that it is based only on biology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirp (talk • contribs) 06:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope, won't argue and won't edit this anymore. Timothy Perper (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a basic confusion of what Wikipedia policy on NPOV is. Neutral Point of View does *not* mean that the article should be neutral. Attempts to change the text of one POV so that it does not say what it says as strongly is not how one fixes an article to make it Neutral. If there are multiple POV's, then they should each (in their own section) be we allowed to accurately represent that POV (based on reliable sources and citations for the statements made). This gives the reader full exposure to the alternate perspectives given, and they can weigh their own opinion as they choose. They can follow the given citations as they choose.

ALso, keep in mind that these articles are not scholarly papers written in collaboration between experts on a given topic. It is an encyclopedia and is written by editors who gather information and present it as fairly and neutrally as possible without adopting any POV. As editors, they primarily are concerned with rules and guidelines, formatting, punctuation and presentation. When someone tries to take on a dual role as an expert on the topic, and also as an editor, it is extremely tricky. An editor may not offer their opinion in the article, they may only present was can be provided by reliable sources on the topic. An expert can't help but to give their opinions -- but when they edit here, they may only bring their broad knowledge of the research done and help to establish of multiple POV's which ones should be more heavily weighted based on their knowledge of the field. They can edit to be sure that technical or scientific information is accurate, and that proper technical jargon for their field is used when it is used. Trying to inject their own research ad opinions is not appropriate (unless they are giving citations to their own published papers or books.) Even then a basic conflict of interest can arise. Atom (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You're not even listening, Atom. I said I won't argue with you but you keep trying to provoke an edit war. I have no POV on this topic, although you do. I invite you to read some literature in this area: start with Milton Diamond, Simon LeVey, and Richard Pillard. No one can edit anything on Wikipedia if they do not know the basic principles of the subfield they're writing about. In fact, you need to know more than the reader -- because that is why you're the writer and they're the readers (a comment true of writing and teaching, BTW). You wrote: "Neutral Point of View does *not* mean that the article should be neutral." No, you are wrong. That is PRECISELY what it means. The article must NOT take sides one way or the other. A synonym is "objective." And stop trying to incite an edit war. Timothy Perper (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

From TP: A thought added later. Atom, you can edit this article any way you want. I'm going to take this page off my watch-list and you can put in whatever you want. No more of this. Timothy Perper (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Even though I know you won't be reading this, let me try to be more succinct. From WP:NPOV "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." This means that if there are different POV's they should all be represented fairly. This does not mean trying to remove or massage material to make it not conflict with other POV's, it means in fact, just the opposite.

So far, I don't believe I have argued with you, but only have explained Wikipedia policies. We haven't had a revert war, nor have I encouraged that. I reverted you once, after you made changes to the article that violated policy, and when an admin reverted you, you reverted him, and so it was necessary for me to revert you.

I have given your unique situation some thought. What might work for you is if you, as an expert, discuss the issues and problems you see in the talk pages. Then editors would be able to correct those things. In that way, you don't have to mess with the bureaucratic nonsense of editing, and can focus on your areas of expertise. Certainly as A PhD, and an expert in your field, you probably delegate research tasks and grunt work to graduate students all of the time. If you wade in with the editors, you probably are going to get your shins kicked. Why not let someone else deal with that so that you can deal with the higher level issues with the article. Atom (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no desire to step into an edit war but one paragraph did indeed begin with weasel words. I replaced it with wording that is consistent with NPOV and does no damage to the sources. If my edit is in any way controversial I would ask someone to explain it to me; I do not think it is, it was not intended to change the meaning of anything, simply to improve the prose. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, wow, it's a good thing I was going to take this off my watchlist later today. If I had done it earlier, I would have missed Atom's overt threat. (Quoted from above: "If you wade in with the editors, you probably are going to get your shins kicked.") Wanna get banned, Atom? Repeat the line about kicking me in the shins. Let me give you a serious warning. DO NOT MAKE THREATS OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE AGAINST OTHER PEOPLE. Got it? Timothy Perper (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well,as they say, "no good deed goes unpunished " --Luce

Consider what I said from a metaphorical perspective.

Good luck to you in your editing! Atom (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a big word. Do you know what it means? It means that it is obvious that you can't kick me through my computer screen. But it's a disruptive threat whether it's a metaphor or a meatball. In my opinion, you are seriously disrupting the normal processes of editing and discussion by making such "metaphoric" threats. I experience genuine malice from your words, Atom. I hear and experience you as sneering, bullying, trying to frighten me and other editors into silence. You are, in my opinion, making it impossible to achieve consensus. I am seriously tempted to tell you simply to be quiet and do some real editing: add material, improve it, fix up the obvious flaws in this article. But I am also beginning to think that those are exactly the things you do not want to do, and perhaps are unable to do, no matter how many Wikipedia policies you can quote.

Tell me, does your repeated sneering at me being an "expert" -- which seems to bother you a lot, judging from how often you sneer at it -- does your repeated sneering cover up your fear that you just might not know the first thing about the topic of this article? You can prove me wrong only by putting in substantive material, say about biological essentialist theorizing about the origins of gender, or about Milton Diamond's overarching biosocial theories of homosexuality or about Robert Francoeur's developmental-genetic model of sexual orientation, to pick only three of dozens of possibilities. Or about Anne Fausto-Sterling. In a word, it's time for you to do some work on this article, rather than sitting on the sidelines telling other people what to do. The issue isn't about metaphor: it's about whether or not you are a phony. Now, prove to us all that you aren't by doing some real work on the article, not just attacking people from the sidelines. You told me to "assign" some topics to people: OK, Atom, here's YOUR assignment: write 200 documented and referenced words on Milton Diamond's work on the origins of sexual orientation. BTW, the reference to APA cited above by Kirp will give you some ideas. Timothy Perper (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

TP again. But now what does anyone want me to do about all this? In actual fact, I can't assign any topics to anyone; that was a fantasy of Atom's. A desire to revise and improve this article has to come from somewhere other than me -- once again, I won't do it (been there, tried that, got nowhere). I think you can see where I'm going with this: in the last analysis, this article and the problems raised by various forms of disruptive and/or chaotic behavior have to be solved by you folks. So now I am going to take this article off my watchlist, and this time I won't delay. So Atom can attack all he wants. It's in your hands now. I have to go back to working on a book my wife and I are writing (the fifth we've published together). I wish I could say "It's been fun," but it hasn't. My bottom line is that I think all the sneering and hatred and anger is counter-productive and a total waste of time. Timothy Perper (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sexual orientation, identity, and behavior

This section is in dire need of some tidying up- I'm not sure exactly what aspects of the topic it is trying to cover at the moment, but it seems to be trying to do all of them.

I deleted two paragraphs, both of which probably belonged more in section 4 (Influences on sexual orientation)- however, when I looked at moving them I decided they did not add anything to that which was already there.

The issue about theories surrounding determinants not being well supported was already covered in the first quote from the APA et al. The remainder of that paragraph was a single sentence with seven clauses (too many, and it was not clear at all to read). I attempted to rewrite it, but in the end, it seemed to say very little that was meaningful. If another editor feels it is important, then the sentence needs to be rewritten before it is included in the article again.

The second quote, introduced as the citation for "Motive is recognized as influencing sexual orientation" did not appear to support the initial sentence (at least, not in the sense that I read it in). Rather, it repeated content which has already been covered elsewhere in the article (causes not clear, evidence that environmental influences may not exist, people express their identity differently depending on the society around them). Orientalmoons (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it would improve this article if it identified actual debates, and put views on sexual orientation in the context of such debates when appropriate. For example, there is a debate (largely in the US) about whether LGBT people should have equal rights and be socially accepted. In the context of this debates, some people argue "yes" because sexual orientation is not a choice (which ie often equated with "biological" or "natural") and some people argue "no" because they believe sexual orientation is a choice. I think the second view is a minority view but NPOV requires us to include minority views; we just have to be careful not to give them undue weight.

But there is a second debate in academe, among anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists, as to what factors determine sexual orientation. Like the debate over Race and intelligence this debate may ultimately be over genetic versus environmental factors.

But it is a real error, in the real world and in writing an encyclopedia article, to mix up these two debates. One can hold that sexual orientation is genetic (like astigmatism) but sexual behavior is a choice (like wearing glasses); one can hold that the causes are environmental and still be a militant for equal rights/social acceptance/treatment for LGBTs. Many things have environmental causes yet are experienced as "natural" rather than free choice.

These are two separate debates and my point is separating the debates (and not just views) will make it easier to incorporate controversial views and go over separate views in a logical, orderly fashion that will improve the overall organization of the article. It will also help us know how to incorporate different views without giving them undue weight. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. Per WP:NPOV alternative viewpoints must be expressed, and should be expresses objectively. Supporting citations for the viewpoints should be given. It is not possible to express the perspective of the differing views fairly if other views are mixed with them. So, a separate paragraph, or separate section for the differing viewpoints should be provided. Usually going to the point of splintering into separate articles is necessary, but in my opinion, should be avoided unless there is no alternative way of discussing two very different viewpoints in the same article. They should be given fair weight (not equal weight). (for instance some relatively new fringe viewpoint should have relatively little weight, while some long standing theory with much research supporting the theory should be given more weight.)

The mistake too frequently made is that a new editor hears about the term NPOV and think\s that means the article must be "neutral" (which for them means not giving weight to the view they oppose.) The article should give each viewpoint coverage. Attempts by opposition to weaken or reduce the impact of opposing views by changing what the citations say to something different should not be allowed. Atom (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I added the two paragraphs in response to, as I recall, a criticism that only material newer than certain other sources could be added. I don't think that's true as long as the older material remains valid, but I complied anyway. I'm open to restoring or not depending on whether newness of a source is required to establish the continuing validity of an important point. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I too agree completely with Slrubenstein, although I'm not entirely sure where to begin with actually editing the article (and in any case, I don't have the time to devote to it in the next week or two). Clarity about who contends what and why would hopefully allow the different points of view to be given appropriate weight and make the article much more cohesive.

Nick Levinson, I'm not sure what point the paragraphs were trying to make, exactly, and I don't think others reading the article would either; I couldn't really see that they were saying anything that hadn't already been said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orientalmoons (talk • contribs) 22:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think proposing a rewrite and discussing it could yield positive results. If we focus on making it easy to read and understand. We should include competing views. As far as older versus newer references, that is a judgment call. If old research is updated or replaced by newer research then the newer reference should replace. If they are complimentary and give different aspects of the same topic, then both could be. If an older theory is debunked, one could still refer to that theory and why it is no longer solid. There any number of possibilities. Atom (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think everyone agrees that secual orientation refers to a predisposition, distinct from behavior (as Marvin harris wrote in Our Kind, just because one prefers meat over potatoes, does not mean one can't have a potato every once in a while). I think the crucial thing is that there are two debates, a public debate that still follows the logic of the medieval "determinism" versus" "free will" debate, and an academic debate that with fringe exceptions considers sexual orientation to be "determined" but are not at all clear yet as to whether the determinants are genetic, socio-cultural, or some combination of the two. This would reorint the structure of the article from "who is right?" to "what are people arguing over?" My main hope is that this would provide a much more useful framework for people - currently active, or newbies - to know where to add a new bit of information, or a new source. The NPOV and NOR policies make it clear that the context for views is as important as the views. I think what plagues this (and many other articles) is that it tries to provide all the views, but is poorly organized with regards to their distinct contexts. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think most people believe that Sexual Orientation is "hard-wired" and that one cannot change it. One can choose to behave in many different ways. A man who is sexually attracted to women may occasionally decide to try sleeping with men, but that is not "Sexual Orientation", that is homosexual behavior. The issue is what exactly causes a person to be hard wired n that fashion? Some people believe that although it is hard wired, that some techniques can change that wiring. (Not my opinion) Is that wiring caused entirely by genetics? By some genetics, and some very early environmental factors? (Presence or absence of hormones in uterus?) Environmental factors early in life? These are issues that the article should discuss. Viewpoints that it is not biological, and is a matter of choice/behavior is not well supported by research. Hence, IMO that should be a view that has very little weight, or lacking citations, non-existent in the article. Atom (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

personally, I have no argument with anyting you write, although I think "hard wired" is often accomplished entirely through social and cultural means (and we know that things that are biologically hard wired are often easy to change). But you are providing an account of scholarly research. This is important and needs to be foregrounded. But there is another debate, one in the general public, that has diferent terms, and the article should cover it as well. I think that a lot of useless conflict among editors occur when they think that there is only one debate, when they treat one debate as if it is part of th other debate. My point is that "sexual orintation" is an object of debate, and that there are different - separate - debates and the article should cover both but make it clear that these are separate debates. I think virtually all of the confusion occurs when someone thinks that a view that plays an important role in one debate is also part of, or even matters to, another debate. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify what your perspective is on the two separate debates? Of course, I know there is a discussion with people who think that all people are born the same, and that homosexuals are people who "choose" to be who they are, and the choice to behave that way is immoral. Based on that assumption, that they deserve to be marginalized and discriminated against, in the same way that a criminal would be. Of course, I don't believe that, not does nay rational person. But there are large numbers of well meaning, good-seeking people who feel badly that they must judge people in that manner, but feel that their religion tells them they should.

Taking religion out of the picture (as if that were possible) and approaching it from a scientific discussion, the sexual attractions that one has are something that are beyond their control -- originating from very early in their life. The decision to follow ones orientation or not is behavioral. Just as once society thought that left handed people were aberrant, but then learned to accept that as a normal part of being human, others will someday accept people with an inborn sexual orientation as a normal part of being human -- just different than some others.

The concept of sexual orientation merely being a label, and not something hard-wired, seems to be the biggest difficulty. If there is older research focused on self-reporting of sexual orientation, then there will be a number of valid cites focusing on how people have chosen to live, rather than on their base sexual orientation.

We as editors need to have a clear understanding of the different POV's -- or as you say, the different debates and faithfully organize and document them so that others can understand. When an editor comes in and changes a paragraph because it emphasizes "another" POV to strongly for their tastes we had to revert them and point them to documenting *their* POV more accurately (if it is not already being addressed in the article). Or their debate, or however you may perceive it.

Lets keep talking about this, and start a rewrite in a scratch location and work it out. Atom (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid I do not understand your question, "Please clarify what your perspective is on the two separate debates?" What do you mean by "my perspective?

You said "...there are different - separate - debates and the article should cover both but make it clear that these are separate debates." What are the debates? Atom (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)