Jump to content

Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Proposed merge

I'm proposing that the split article Homosexual orientation be merged back into this one. Both articles are now too long, and in any case they contain mostly duplicate information. In addition:

  • The "new" definition of homosexuality is exactly the same as the one for "homosexual orientation". Both refer, by the sources given, to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions primarily to" people of the same sex," ie: "sexual behavior with or attraction to people of the same sex"
Homosexual orientation does not equate to sexual behavior with people of the same sex. If that were the case, homosexual orientation would be a choice, because we can all choose our sexual behaviors. That would be like saying a Catholic priest has decided not be heterosexual anymore because decided to be celibate. The APA has said "Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors." [1] Now, homosexuality includes a homosexual orientation, so hence it includes the enduring pattern definition, but it also includes sexual behavior, where homosexual orientation does not. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • This article is bloated with information that isn't needed in it. I think editors here have fallen into the common trap of over-analyzing homosexuality in relation to heterosexuality. While the Heterosexuality article isn't perfect, it's nowhere near as angsty and cluttered with extraneous information as this one. There'll be plenty of room in this article for any new information in the homosexual orientation article once all the extra stuff here is removed.
It seems like merging the two two articles would make this article more bloated. This seems like a good argument not to merge. Let's first declutter this article. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • There is also a lot of duplicate information just in this article (eg: etymology is discussed twice).
But there isn't a lot of duplicate information between the two articles. There is some, but that can be easily fixed. Like you said, the split was pretty new. I don't see how having a lot of duplicate information just in this article will be fixed by merging the articles. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Those articles are probably small enough so that the three aspects of bisexuality and heterosexuality can be covered in one article. That doesn't mean they might not make those pages in the future. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Homosexual orientation contains a lot of information that is specific to a homosexual orientation, such as homophobia, psychological view of homosexual orientation, and laws protecting people with a homosexual orientation. Just because we already have articles on those topics, doesn't mean we can't go into how those topics specifically relate to a homosexual orientation. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I realize this split has only recently occurred, but it happened without sufficient discussion and over at least some editors' objections. Discussion is needed. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The split has never made much sense to me, except in regard to shortening the article. I said when the proposal was made that the three principal meanings identified in the lead are intertwined and that it would be difficult, if possible at all, to break one of them out from the other two. Summarization of each section with accompanying multiple new articles (e.g., Homosexuality in history, Homosexuality and religion) would be more logical, I think, and more easily accomplished. However, it might be better to let the split run its course and see what we end up with before attempting to weld any of it back together. Clearly, there will be critical pieces missing from the article. It may be that a total rewrite will be indicated. Rivertorch (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. The lead gives three distinct definitions. It says "Homosexuality refers to sexual behavior with or attraction to people of the same sex, or to a homosexual orientation." Note that it uses or, not and. I completely agree that the three definitions have a lot of overlap, and I think the different pages reflect the overlap. However, the definitions are still distinct. When you talk about whether homosexuality is legal in a certain country, you aren't talking about whether the sexual orientation is illegal, but whether same-sex relationships are legal. When you talk about causes of homosexuality, you are talking about what causes a person to have a certain sexual orientation. See my inserted comments. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
While the concepts of homosexual behavior, orientation and attraction may overlap considerably with one another, I agree with Joshiajohanson it is very important that these aspects of homosexuality be carefully distinguished for the purposes of describing and explaining homosexuality as a complex phenomenon.--Agnaramasi (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That may be what the intro says, but in fact there's really no difference between the two so-called definitions, and in fact a whole lot more quality references would be needed if you want to claim that there's enough of a difference between homosexuality and "homosexual orientation" to warrant two distinct articles. Joshua: you seem to be mixing up homosexuality (which is to say, (homo)sexual orientation) and (homo)sexual behaviour. I think that there's a lot of this confusion going on in this article in particular. "Homosexuality" means "homosexual orientation" (or would, if "homosexual orientation" wasn't a weird neologism) just as "heterosexuality" means "heterosexual orientation." Two distinct articles are unnecessary, confusing, and repetitious. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the significance of "or" rather than "and" in the lead. Either conjunction would work, grammatically and logically. (Or should I say grammatically or logically?) This is a huge topic and I confess to feeling occasionally overwhelmed by its breadth and all of its intricacies, so let me just address two points. First, the legal status in certain countries, just like the "acceptance status" in certain subcultures such as religious bodies, does not hinge only on relationships or behavior; in many cases it hinges on accusations and/or admissions of homosexual orientation. In many cases, it is quite enough to say "I'm gay" to be condemned to death or kicked out of church or whatever, regardless of whether one is now in, has ever been in, or plans to be in a relationship. And even on the behavior front, what many would consider "homosexual behavior" need not be sexual behavior at all: as I noted in an earlier thread, being gay is about lots more than the gender of the person(s) one has sex with—it also has a lot to do with the gender of the person(s) one does nonsexual things with (like falling in love, for instance). "Sexual orientation" is something of a misnomer in that regard. Nonetheless, while it may be useful to make useful distinctions between orientation and attraction or behavior, they are immutably linked because homosexual orientation means (among many other things) a propensity for homosexual attraction and behavior. In any event, I did suggest letting the split run its course and then reevaluating how things stand. There's just too much in flux to go back and forth between splits and merges so quickly. I suspect we'll see another proposal to merge sometime soon. I may well support it then, but I oppose it now. Rivertorch (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Homosexuality and homosexual orientation are definitely different, but they are very closely interlinked. Also, a lot (if not most or all) of the info on the homosexual orientation page is stuff your average wikipedia browser would (I believe) think to find on the homosexuality page. However, I agree with Rivertorch - leave it as it is unless it leads to problems. Darimoma (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The dictionary uses both definitions.[2] I also think the average wikipedia browser would think to find a lot of the stuff on the same-sex relationships page on this page. The problem is there is no room. The article is already too long, even with the two spin-offs. The most important things should be summarized and placed in the homosexual orientation and same-sex relationships paragraphs. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not overly impressed with the American Heritage Dictionary as a source. I'd like to see some quality references for the way you're proposing to use these terms. A Google search for "homosexual orientation" brings up page after page of religious websites and links to the new Wikipedia article. Can you document where the terms "homosexuality" and "homosexual orientation" are explicitly differentiated in a scholarly source, such as the Journal of Homosexuality?
It seems very strange to me that you're so concerned with terminology on the one hand, and yet so willing to mix concepts on the other. Why, for example, should the Homosexuality article contain information from Same-sex relationship? Why should the Homosexuality article be the repository for information on gay sex, rather than the Human sexual behaviour article? Ditto HIV/AIDS? And why is a separate Homosexual orientation article needed when we already have Sexual orientation? Where will this splitting end? Pedophilic orientation? Pansexual orientation? Zoosexual orientation? We need to be clear on the difference between sexuality (that is, sexual orientation; you'll note that Sexuality currently redirects to Sexual orientation) and sexual behaviour. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
There is an important distinction between homosexuality as a behaviour and as a sexual orientation. How is a homosexual identity at all the same as homosexual sexual practices? They may be related, yes, but they certainly are not identical. A person can profess a homosexual sexual orientation while not engaging in homosexual sexual practices just as easily as a person can engage in such practices and profess a heterosexual sexual orientation. Perhaps the best way of naming the splitted articles would be "Homosexuality (sexual orientation)" and "Homosexuality (sexual behaviour)" in order to avoid introducing the odd phrase "Homosexual orientation" altogether. But I do think that the distinction itself is beyond question. An important reference would be Foucault, who argues in The History of Sexuality that homosexual sexual practices only became associated with a homosexual identity since the 19th century. This distinction is not confined to Foucaultian discourse, however. It is, I'm sure, axiomatic in most contemporary psychological, sociological, historical and philosophical discourses of sexuality.--Agnaramasi (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The point of view taken by Rivertorch seems eminently sensible to me. Why not improve this article and its subarticles first, and then reconsider the merge once this article is well structured and concise? Obsession with definitions (on all sides) is not helpful while the article is so weak. Geometry guy 21:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between homosexuality as a sexual orientation and homosexual behaviour as a type of sex. That's why we have the Homosexuality and Human sexual behaviour articles. Surely no one's suggesting that this article should be a reincarnation of Gay sex? Exploding Boy (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
There hasn't been a lot of activity here lately. If no one objects, I am going to remove the banners from the articles. This doesn't mean this discussion can't be picked up at a later date. Joshuajohanson (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I politely object, please put them back in, please.Kairos (talk) 04:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Norwegians and homosexual sex

This article contains this passage, "However, according to a survey, 12% of Norwegians have had homosexual sex." I think that this is undue (there's no good reason to mention Norway in particular), and it is cited in a very misleading way - as though it had some relevance to the percentage of the population that is homosexual. As there is a difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, it does not necessarily have any such relevance. This fact should be removed from the article, or relocated somewhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.150.49 (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I support the comment above. The proportion of the population that has had homosexual sex has no necessary relevance to the proportion that is homosexual, as sexual behavior and sexual orientation are different kinds of things. Since no one has objected to this proposal over the past week, I am going to remove this material from the article. Devil Goddess (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Terminology

Why is there so much use of the awkward term "same-sex" throughout this article? We have a perfectly good adjective for this: homosexual. Why concoct such an awkward term when there is a much more common and elegant term for the same thing? It sounds really strange to use "same-sex" as an adjective to me. It's like calling identical twins same-genome twins or something... Feichangdao (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is about homosexuality itself, and is designed to be read by people seeking information about homosexuality. Therefore, we should avoid over-using the term as if it were an already defined value. Same sex attractions and relationships are central features of homosexuality, and therefore appropriate reference points. forestPIG(grunt) 21:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Can

Someone explain why we have two article for both Homosexuality and Homosexual orientation? Aren't they the same thing? 76.29.116.172 (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If you search the archives of this talk page, you'll see that after much discussion the article was split into two. Several reasons were behind this, the most compelling of them being that the article, which was undergoing GA review, was way too long. To answer your second question, homosexuality, as the lead paragraph states, "refers to sexual behavior with or attraction to people of the same sex, or to a homosexual orientation." In other words, "homosexuality" has a broader definition than just the sexual orientation. Incidentally, the split was controversial, and I suspect we will see a merge again sometime down the road. Rivertorch (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The American Psychological Association joins the American Psychiatric Association in defining homosexuality as a category of act or desire expressed by an individual. see In Re Marriage Cases. --ElderHap (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC). edited by ElderHap (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Unwarranted deletion

Silly Rabbit, don't you think you need to discuss something before you single mindedly decide something to be not up to your taste and delete it. If there are no references or citations, then you ask for them before you go about deleting text. Deletion of text by another editor, without a discussion, upon one's own whims and fancies is a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia.(Masculinity (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC))

It is true that Wikipedia has a policy of WP:BOLDness that allows people to edit articles boldly, possibly against the existing consensus. However, it also has the guideline of WP:BRD: specifically, if you are bold, and then reverted, then you should discuss. Now this deletion was not based on my "own whims and fancies" (see WP:AGF), but was rather based on WP:NPOV as I indicate in the edit summary of the reversion. The edit was clearly intended to push a particular point of view, which probably does not represent the majority point of view among scholars. If it turns out that this is the majority point of view, then perhaps it can stay in the article. But without references to mainstream sources, no one can make that determination.

I have noticed that some editors who, when confronted with this problem, will often attempt to build a case for the added material by seeking sources that conform to their own point of view. This is also not entirely acceptable. What would be ideal instead is to write the section from sources. A good place to start might be to find one source, mainstream enough that it is beyond reproach, which treats the problem of historical concepts of sexuality. Then to find a source (hopefully also beyond reproach) dealing with essentialism and constructionism in this context as well. The paragraphs you wrote on this topic, in addition to continuing in the polemic vein of the historical section, further seem to be an original synthesis of published ideas, which is not permitted under policy. Writing the section from mainstream sources and being careful not to draw any original conclusions will help to avoid these issues. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
More. I think the article is lacking a discussion of queer theory and the essentialism versus constructionism debate. I do not think that large portions of the article should be rewritten from an explicitly constructionist point of view however. What would be better is to write a short section, in summary style, giving the main viewpoints, and adding it to a later section of the article. Perhaps at first this could go into the Law, politics, and society section. If enough material accumulates, then maybe there will be consensus to develop a Philosophy section. However, I think other project members should weigh in on this, since they might have better ideas about what to do. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Concur with Silly rabbit that the revert was in order. In addition to containing questionable, unsourced opinions, Masculinity's edit appeared to remove sourced material—without discussion, no less. Leaving aside for the moment the alphabet soup of WP policies and guidelines and being wholly pragmatic, anyone who has watched this article for a while should know that major changes without prior discussion and reputable sources are likely to be reverted. I'm not arguing that that's good or bad in general, just that it's the reality. Rivertorch (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The line about historical figures in the Homosexuality needs to be removed because it is unproven.

"Many historical figures, including Socrates, Lord Byron, Edward II, Hadrian, Julius Caesar, Michelangelo, Donatello, Leonardo DaVinci, and Christopher Marlowe had sexual relationships with people of their own sex."

This line needs to be removed based on the fact that there are no proven facts that Leonardo DaVinci was a homosexual. The only grounds that even point to homosexuality is that he was brought up on sodomy charges (common to the 15th Century to discredit political, scientific, and family oppositions) charges by opposing, jealous scientists and artist. Leonardo was found not guilty. If anything this evidence points to the fact that Leonardo did not have sexual relations with men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyoa1fan (talk • contribs) 03:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if Leonardo is inappropriately included, that would hardly justify removal of the entire line. As to whether it's inappropriate, that's hard to say. There are some grounds other than the ones you mention, although they're hardly conclusive; neither is a not-guilty finding by a 15th-century court conclusive. The underlying problem here is that conclusive evidence of who was doing what with whom 500 years ago is generally impossible to come by. Historians, biographers, scientists, fellow artists, self-professed soul mates all peer through the lens of their own eras and make guesses, some of them informed by considerable circumstantial and anecdotal evidence, some of them just guesses. How much does it matter? Is it important that sexual orientation or sexual behavior be described accurately in the case of historical figures? If so, why? Leonardo is widely believed to have been romantically involved (although not necessarily sexually involved) with members of his own sex. Perhaps we should reword the sentence to reflect that, and throw in a relevant citation. Rivertorch (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, some re-writing is in order. I don't think that anyone will claim that Socrates had sexual relationships with boys, though it is very clear that he desired them. Haiduc (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Asexual-Leonardo Di Vinci for all arguement purposes was Asexual. While the arguement of Heterosexuals and Homosexuals has been so heated we have forgotten other forms of sexual orientation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.188.25 (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

We definitely need extra citations here. What about changing it to:

Many historical figures, including Socrates, Lord Byron, Edward II, Hadrian[29], Julius Caesar, Michelangelo, Donatello, Leonardo da Vinci, and Christopher Marlowe are believed to have had romantic or sexual relationships with people of their own sex.

Emphasis mine and should be removed if it's to be added to the article. There are quite a few names on here that are based on anecdotal evidence; this merits their inclusion but not the definite term "had." I'll look online for sources and encourage others to do the same. Graymornings(talk) 03:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You're probably on the right track, but I see two potential problems: (1) "believed to have had" is weaselly (weasellous?); (2) romantic relationships may be more easily documented than sexual ones, so the "romantic or sexual" wording applied to a group of historical figure is imprecise. I think the key here lies in the citations. I have had little luck so far with either online sources or my own books at hand, but I'll keep looking. Someone with full access to a good university library could make a difference here. Rivertorch (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right -- "believed to have had" is a bit weaselly and could definitely be worded better. We do need to imply, though, that some of these relationships are poorly-documented and that scholars have debated them. Ideas?

I've actually got access to the library of Williams College, which is biggish and has a good English lit collection. (Our rare books library supposedly has some important Byron stuff, but it's closed for renovations -- might be working there in a month, though.) We've also got online access to most journal articles. I'll look around for sources, and if there's anything you'd like me to look up, I'd be happy to find it for you. Graymornings(talk) 22:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm hoping to have a little more time in the next several weeks for this article and its forkish sibling, Homosexual orientation. I keep coming back to the unfortunate fact that good evidence for the sexual/affectional orientation of long-ago people, not to mention the exact nature of their relationships, will often be completely absent. (This is just as true, of course, for historical figures generally held to be straight as it is for the ones mentioned in this article.) In many cases, what we're seeking to report here are educated guesses, theories, and sometimes just plain conjecture—which is fine, as long as the people whose guesses, theories, and conjecture we're repeating are notable and/or scholarly. Rivertorch (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I've found out so far:

  • Socrates: The Socrates article says surprisingly little about this, which is something that could be improved. The article Charmides deals with this issue in the context of the Socratic dialogues.
  • Lord Byron: Seems solid. The Byron article has good sources for these assertions that we can copy into this article. See the Lord Byron article's section on this.
  • Edward II: The Edward II article gives it a mention and cites Cantor's In The Wake of the Plague as a source, but I don't know how legit this is. I'll go to the library and give it a look.
  • Hadrian: Well-documented, although curiously not mentioned in the Hadrian article. Anthony Birley's Hadrian: The Restless Emperor has more info.
  • Julius Caesar: Unclear. It's very likely that questions about his sexuality were rumors started by political rivals. Scholarly sources sparse.
  • Michaelangelo: Whether he had romantic relationships with young men is beyond question; however, he may not have had sexual relationships at all. The Michaelangelo article has cites we can use.
  • Donatello: Inconclusive. Historians disagree. Article has cites.
  • Leonardo da Vinci: Was prosecuted under sodomy laws, but acquitted. Scholarly articles sparse, but seem to indicate that there's not much evidence.
  • Christopher Marlowe: Historians disagree. Article has cites.

The main question is whether we can say conclusively that these men definitely had relationships (romantic or sexual) with men. It looks like we can't for most of them, although Byron, Hadrian, and Michaelangelo come close. We can certainly say that all of them were suspected of being homosexual, but to say that all of them had relationships with their own sex would be overreaching. More research a-comin'. Graymornings(talk) 03:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Military

{{editsemiprotected}}At the end of the military section it states the British military has had no problems since allowing homosexuals into service and then cites a newspaper. This is extremely unlikely, as even minor problems are bound to have occurred. A stronger citation is needed or a rewording to state that there were no large reprocussions as of yet. Something like, "The British military, which removed their restriction against gay service members in 2000, has yet to experience the feared results on a large scale.Cutterx2202 (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Find proof that problems have occurred and then we can change the article. Your belief that there MUST be some problems says more about you and your beliefs than anything else.Kairos (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I rejected the edit request as no consensus for the change.-Andrew c [talk] 16:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Addition to subsection on homosexuality in European history

I think this article should include a few sentences about (and a reference) to Allan A. Tulchin's highly-publicized article of 2007, in which this historian of Medieval France (Shippensburg University) presented evidence that a form of same-sex civil unions existed in the Middle Ages, not only in France, but in other areas of Europe, as well. Here is the citation: Allan A. Tulchin, "Same-Sex Couples Creating Households in Old Regime France: The Uses of the Affrèrement", The Journal of Modern History 79 (September 2007): 613–647. Discussion of the article appeared in The Week, Science Daily, and many other news sources. Tulchin argues that "affrerement" (translated as "enbrotherment") was a common legal category in which two men could live together, pool their resources, and basically function as a married couple. Given the fact that the current page says very little about the Middle Ages, and in light of the attention garnered by the article, I think the research deserves a mention. The article is easily locatable online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavlovscat567 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Pavlovscat567 (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I received a suggestion that this information should be included in the article on the history of same-sex unions. I agree. I also added the info to the page on the history of sexuality. However, I still think it's worth including a reference to Tulchin's work on this page. Tulchin speculates that "enbrotherment" relationships were sometimes sexual, sometimes not (you can image the difficulty with the historical sources). That being the case, it would relate to "sexuality" more directly. People should take a look at this article in the Journal of Modern History and give feedback. Thanks! Pavlovscat567 (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Could this "Enbrotherment" have been created as a way for two young men to cope with the cost of living? Sort of like having 4 or more roommates to help yo pay the rent in college happens today?? Though, some of them would have likely become sexual in nature anyway..... Kairos (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Born Eunuchs

i think this should be incorporated into the article http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/contents.htm ~kp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.124.0 (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Eunuchs are gay? Very doubtful, and self-published by someone of dubious credentials on the subject. No. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

it's a very thorough thesis and extensive research in global cultures, with source references and original language citations thus very relevant .. ps, it's not me, i found this searching gay - eunuch because of Matthew 19:12 ~ kp

Thorough and extensive or not, it is, as Silly Rabbit noted, self-published and therefore suspect as a suitable source. If you can find instances of the author's research being cited in a scholarly publication such as a peer-reviewed journal, this may be worth revisiting. Rivertorch (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

well, i found Brian Colless' blog (which all appears to be original research) because i read his work being mentioned in the laryngeal theory thread, not sure if he's peer-reviewed or not but that matters is the scope of referenceable sources, not the scholar's status of anyone being cited ... it should in the very least be included as a minority opinion but if you google "eunuchs are gay" you'll see that it's not such a minority report ...

if wikipedia has double standards then that's different dillema but this is pertinent information, and not speculation much like Haiduc's points in the Da Vinci as a pederatst talk page

ps - i'm in no way trying to write this into the article, i just think it should be mentioned, that is all. ~ kp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.124.0 (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit to only having glanced at the cited source, but it immediately set off some redflags. The claim that "eunuchs are gay" is totally misleading, but not quite an accurate representation of the cited source. Eunuchs are generally asexual rather than homosexual, because they lack a hormone-induced sex drive. There are also neurological differences because eunuchs never went through puberty. The contention of the thesis appears to be that "eunuch" historically may have also meant "homosexual", not that eunuchs in the biological sense show any particular dispensation towards sexual attraction to the same sex. The entire point of this thesis appears to be an attempt to reconcile homosexuality with Christianity, since Jesus of Nazareth was alleged to have said: "For there are some eunuchs who are born so from their mother's womb, and some eunuchs who are eunuchized by men, and some eunuchs who eunuchize themselves for the sake of the kingdom of the heavens. Let him who is able to receive it, receive it." The entire thesis is about what this quotation means by the phrase "eunuchs who are born so from their mother's womb." Such a view may have a (minority) place in an article like Christian views of homosexuality, but it has very little to do with the present article. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

it was known by me because i'm christian and not gay, but the article categorizes eunuchs throughout cultures independent of religion, tradition or nationality and it argues convincingly that "homosexuals" were at some point also known as eunuchs

(1) born eunuchs could have complete genitals, (2) they had no lust for women, and (3) they had lust for men.

that's his thesis and if you take a look you'll see it noteworthy and non-religiously biased ~kp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.124.0 (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The author is fairly explicit that his motivation is religious. The quote by Jesus of Nazareth above is extracted from the prospectus. Now, regardless of whether "homosexuals" were once called "eunuchs", it is totally misleading to say so in the present sense of these terms. (Biological euncuchs are not gay, or straight, or anything: they are asexual.) On the other hand, if the purpose of the thesis is merely to point out some historical discrepancy in the meaning of the word "eunuch", then for one thing references of greater philological WP:WEIGHT are required. Otherwise, the only thing the article can say is something like the following: "Faris Malik, a dropout from the German literature graduate program at Princeton University, has argued that the term 'eunuch' historically referred to a 'homosexual'." So what? I can probably find equally good sources that say that the moon is made of green cheese. This is one of the reasons that Wikipedia proscribes original research in favor of verifiable material published in reliable sources: no matter how convincing an argument might be, it needs to be thoroughly vetted by experts before an encyclopedia can assert it. After all, there are people who believe (based on what they think is solid evidence) that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
That's because the lunar module's thrusters would have melted the green cheese, I think! User 24.26.124.0, I think you may be misunderstanding our role here. It's not up to Wikipedia editors to determine whether the thesis is noteworthy; in cases like this, involving claims that are novel or inconsistent with mainstream understanding, our role is to find a reliable source that says a given claim is worth noting. In other words, Mr. Malik's research may well be valid and important, and if that's the case, it probably will eventually be published in a source that meets Wikipedia's standards for reliability. Until that standard of reliability is met, however, it would be inappropriate to mention it in the article. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and other questionable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources for more information. Rivertorch (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead sentece

With minor variations, the sentence "Homosexuality refers to sexual behavior or attraction between people of the same sex, or to a sexual orientation" has been the lead of this article for about two years. Lots of discussion in the past went into achieving a consensus around this sentence. I do not know what is "clearer" about the alternative you propose of listing behaviour, attraction and orientation in a sequence all with a single preposition. "Regarding" is even more unclear than "between." The fundamental problem is that "sexual behaviour" and "attraction" are actions or attitudes that take a preposition relative to another person while "sexual orientation" is a property of oneself. I think the sentence is clearest the way it is.--Agnaramasi (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the sentence you are reverting to is not the old one; my main objection was saying "homosexual orientation" in the definition of "homosexuality." Keeping "homosexual" out of your reversions fixed that (perhaps inadvertantly?).

I can't say I feel strongly about the remaining difference: Nonetheless, experts don't really know what "orientation" is in the first place. The lack of any objective or formally recognized definition of "orientation" has led to a large number of debates over what does and does not count as an orientation. For examples, there are some authors who have said that zoophilia is an orientation towards animals, pedophilia is an orientation towards children, etc. But, as I said, I don't feel strongly about this, with the word "homosexual" removed from the definition of "homosexuality."
— James Cantor (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you that sexual orientation is a problematic and contested concept. The subsequent sentence goes on to give the APA's definition, which I have always personally felt to be an instance of WP:UNDUE. Also, someone in the past six months changed the reference from sexual orientation to homosexual orientation. I changed it back to the former. Obviously what is meant here by "homosexuality is a sexual orientation" is that it is a type of sexual orientation. --Agnaramasi (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy enough to leave it as it is now.
— James Cantor (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Norwegian survey

I propose that the line "However, according to a survey, 12% of Norwegians have had homosexual sex.[13]" is deleted. One can have homosexual sex without being a homosexual, therefore this survey is irrelevant, but can give the impression that there are more homosexuals than there really are. Most surveys in Norway show 1-2%. 129.242.182.27 (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The article begins "Homosexuality refers to sexual behavior or attraction between people of the same sex", so such an impression would be miscomprehension. —EqualRights (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Which most surveys? Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality in animals

I have checked over the years and I am yet to find a study done of animals in their natural habitats that are homosexual. The 'reported' ones have always come from some zoo or wildlife areas. THis I think has made the argument weak.

If i'm incorrect can someone plesae point out such a study. Stating that two penguins in captivity bonded and raised a child you gave them is not proof for me.

Dogs have taken kittens and allowed them mto suckle after the kittens mother died so that I think is not a good example. Their are animals that the father cares for the baby while the mother hunts, even birds that the male partner will sit on the egg for a while. 72.27.26.233 (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the sources in the Homosexual behavior in animals article? --Moni3 (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Especially Biological Exuberance by Bagemihl. Haiduc (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I second the original poster's argument. The whole parent topic is still unproven as to whether it is a chosen action or biological predisposition. Animals can't talk and tell us they are or aren't homosexual, either, and all the current research suggesting a few rare homosexual occurrences in animals can usually be linked to bisexuality or gender confusion, not strictly homosexual behavior. This shouldn't be stated as fact but rather keeping in line with the parent topic as hotly debated and debatable. Cutterx2202 (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
So, like the first poster you are jsut going to state a lie, (that this behavior hasn't been observed in the wild, when it has) instead of dealing with the reality?Kairos (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This does not really fit into the animal section but after reading this wikipedia page i was surprised how much waffle and explantions there were for homosexuality, there is only one reason for homosexuality and it is all explained on this page, no wonder these people are confused. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.78.110 (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, total enlightenment via one BBC story! Maybe we should just link to the BBC and delete the rest of the article. (Joke.) Seriously, I don't think your contention that "there is only one reason for homosexuality" (and presumably also only one reason for heterosexuality) is supported by the reference you cite, but it's a good reference. Keeping in mind that there's now (unfortunately) a separate article called Homosexual orientation, what specifically do you think we should do? Rivertorch (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Its actually present on many sites search for gay brain scan, well lets put it in the other page then if someone hasnt already, ill check that page out. With regards to wiki maybe they should rename this wofflepedia theres so much woffle on here hehe :o). All the best --190.148.78.110 (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Ok well i added it, i like that page there are all sorts of reasons ill have to look at those fingers the next time :o) good luck

Please consider this clarification to the no homosexuals in Iran statement.

{{editsemiprotected}} Today, governments in the Middle East often ignore, deny the existence of, or criminalize homosexuality. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, during his famous 2007 speech at Columbia University, said that, “In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like you do in your country” (the meaning of this statement has been debated but the translator gives the impression that the speaker was highlighting difference rather than non-existence) [1] and that there were no gay people in Iran. Gay people do live in Iran, but most keep their sexuality a secret for fear of government sanction or rejection by their families. [2]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Glaspole (talk • contribs) Jan 22, 2009

. Despite your citations, the language seems biased and mainly speculation. In particular, the use of "often", "most (people)", is not precise. Martin 18:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

 Merger completed Phoenix of9 (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is really stupid. There are two articles Homosexuality and Homosexual orientation. This creates problems. First of all, I bet many people dont even realize this. It took me some time to realize it. Second of all, there is a Wikipedia wide problem. Some references to homosexuality goes to Homosexual orientation while some references to the orientation goes to Homosexuality. In the sexual orientations template, the link is mentioned as Homosexuality but goes to Homosexual orientation. Yes, homosexual acts do not necessarily imply a homosexual orientation but those two issues are strongly correlated even if not fully correlated. And some issues that are relevant to both articles are not present in each article due to division. For example, Homosexual_orientation#Theories_of_causality is an important piece of information but is not present in this article. Instead of having two seperate articles, lets merge them and then explain "Homosexuality refers to sexual behavior or attraction between people of the same sex, or to a sexual orientation." But..(gasp)...it's already explained in this article. So let this article reflect that and discuss both aspects of this issue. Instead of having 2 seperate articles, we can merge them and then we can make each section whithin this article more concise. And finally we do not have a Bisexual orientation and a Heterosexual orientation article neither. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The split was a (misguided, IMO) attempt to cut down the length of this article. It didn't have a whole lot of support at the time and the articles should really be merged back, yes, though it's certainly not going to be me who does it... – Steel 20:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Steel, you took the words out of my mouth. The problem is really a logistical one at this point: because both are long articles, they need some major pruning before a merge is attempted, but since there is precious little superfluous text in either article, much of what gets trimmed will need to be spun off into new articles. This is a major undertaking, and it really should happen first. While I keep getting distracted by other matters on- and off-wiki, if the consensus is to go ahead with a merge, I will try very hard to do my share of laying the groundwork. I guess that means I support the proposal, but it's a weak, fearful support, and I hope this doesn't move forward too quickly. (The talk archives will also have to be merged, which ought to be fun.) Btw, Phoenix, if you have a spare afternoon or two, you might take a look at the talk archives for both articles and read previous threads on this topic. Rivertorch (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Rivertorch, I do understand you and I looked at the previous merger suggestion thread but let me say that what you are suggesting is highly inefficient. I think there should be a merger before such a trimming. Cause if you spend time on it now, the article is gonna be a mess again after a merger and you will have to work on it again. And after a merger you would be able see the whole thing, it'd help to decide what stays and what goes.

So a merger first, and then reorganization and trimming is much more efficient, IMO. Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it certainly would be a major challenge either way. You may be right, but I'm doubtful enough that I'm changing my weak support to neutral for now, pending seeing what others think. (For the record, I totally support your proposal in theory.) Rivertorch (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that the three main sections that really need to be cut down in size are Homosexuality#History, Homosexuality#Law, politics, and society and Homosexual orientation#Theories of causality, and there is no shortage of smaller articles where the information can be moved. I am tentatively agreeing to do one of these as long as someone else does the other two. Whether this happens before or after the merge doesn't really matter to me since, honestly, things can't get much worse than they are now.
Incidentally, I've had a closer look at both articles and there's more redundancy/duplication of info than I thought - compare, for example, Homosexuality#Demographics with Homosexual orientation#Demographics or Homosexuality#Coming_out with Homosexual orientation#Coming_out. That makes merging a bit easier, I guess. – Steel 17:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I can do Homosexual_orientation#Theories_of_causality. I'll create a new article for it. Which one sounds better? Theories_of_causality_of_Homosexuality or Theories_of_causality_of_Homosexual_Orientation or something else? Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I like that idea. Cutting and pasting whole chunks of text is not the solution here. Information too detailed for the main article can be moved into Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation, Environment and sexual orientation, Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation, Biology and sexual orientation, and so on, as appropriate. – Steel 23:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I thought Theories_of_causality could have been one article and we could have summarized it in this article. Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The trouble is that Theories_of_causality would itself be a summary of the various articles I just linked to. But anyway, I went ahead with the prune because I think it's easier to discuss with diffs: compare before (55kb) and after (36kb), as well as, for example, [3] and [4]. It's not perfect by far, but this is the kind of thing I mean. Theories of causality would be like throwing all your rubbish from last night's party behind the sofa where it's going to linger, when what you really want to do is separate it all out, put the glass in the glass recycle bin, paper in the paper bin, and so on, if that makes any sense...? – Steel 13:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Really good job, I'll look into others when I have the time. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Homosexuality#History and Homosexuality#Law, politics, and society look like they cant be shortened any further. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Was that deliberately phrased as a challenge? (btw, I haven't forgotten about this, RL has unfortunately intervened a bit.) – Steel 18:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm in the middle of rewriting the article for Lesbian, and though it has reasons for being unique from homosexuality, what is common is that scientific factors of categorizing homosexuality are dependent upon identity, behavior, and orientation. In some people this is distinct, in others, not at all. I'm using the best sources I can find, and these sources agree that behavior, identity, and orientation are dependent upon individual perception. In my opinion, it would be foolish to separate these notions into individual articles. Instead, it would be much more accurate and encyclopedic to explain these distinctions using the sources available. --Moni3 (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Merger, but i'm a bit sorry to say that i personally don't want to commit myself to devoting a huge amount of my time right now to fixing the article(s) after such a potential merger, because i know it would be a tremendous amount of work. Isn't that awful? I like the idea of the merger happening, but i don't want to have to volunteer to do all the heavy lifting. Teledildonix314 Talk ~ contributions 01:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Merger. The articles homosexual orientation and homosexuality cover almost exactly the same matterial. After the merger the article homosexual orientation ought to be retained at much reduced length. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Merger In addition to the homosexual/heterosexual/bisexual orientation articles being redundant, there's already an article on sexual orientation and one on homosexuality. Let's not forget the sexuality in homosexuality, i.e. everything including attraction, desire, sexual activity, identity, relationships, etc. If the merge and clean-up are carried out, they should also be done with the other orientations/sexualities. --CJ Withers (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I have a major fear that content will be lost or discarded. This article is a daughter article to Homosexuality. I will closely compare the articles later when I get a chance and then vote. However, I will argue against any content being discarded. The solution is to spin out more content into daughter articles that are not so overlapping as these two. I assume everyone is fully aware that merging is not just cut and paste operations, it often requires rewriting and restructuring. It's not something most of us are willing to do unaided or without considerable time available. Actually, a survey of this cluster of articles would be a good thing to eliminate other duplicative content, but only if becomes a wikiproject effort. — Becksguy (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support with condition - that as Becksguy said, no content is lost or discarded and this only applies to this article (as in no trying to merge Lesbian or Gay into this article just because this merger passed; no precedent set here). - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 03:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Safer Sex Boxes

What do the safer sex boxes have to do with homosexuality. wikipedia is not a sexual health clinic, its an encyclopedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domminico (talk • contribs) 22:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

लैङ्गिक तथा यौनिक अल्पसन्खक भन्नाले के बुझीन्छ ?

Extended content

Who are Sexual and Gender Minorites ?

यौन (Sex): ब्यक्तिको यौन अङ्गको हिसाबले (Anatomically) स्त्रीलिङ्गि (Male), पुरुषलिङ्गि (Female) वा अन्तरलिङ्गि (Intersexual) हुनुसँग सम्बन्धित छ। लिङ्ग र यौन शब्द प्राय जसो एक अर्काको लागी प्रयोग गरिएता पनि इनीहरु एकै अर्थ लाग्ने शब्द भने होइनन्।

लिङ्ग (Gender): लिङ्ग भन्ने शब्द कुनै ब्यक्तिको स्त्रीपन (Femininity) वा मर्दपन (Masculinity)लाई लिएर बन्ने सामाजिक ढाँचा (बनावट, Social Construction) हो, यो समय र ठाँऊ अनुसार फरक हुन्छ। यो ढाँचा (बनावट) ब्यक्ति निहित नभई समाजद्धारा सिखाइएको हुन्छ। लिङ्ग र यौन शब्दको एउटै अर्थ लाग्दैन।

लैङ्गिक पहिचान (Gender identity): कुनै पनि ब्यक्तिको "महिला (Woman)", "पुरुष (Man)" वा "तेस्रो प्रकृतीको ब्यक्ति (Transgender)" हुने आन्तरिक अनुभुती हो। "लैङ्गिक प्रस्तुती (Gender Expression)" कुनै पनि ब्यक्तिले आफुलाई आफ्नो लैङ्गिक अनुभुती अनुसार समाजमा कसरि ब्यक्त गर्दछ भन्ने सँग सम्बन्धित हुन्छ। "लैङ्गिक पहिचान" र "लैङ्गिक प्रस्तुती" शब्दहरु प्रायजसो तेस्रो प्रकृती (वा तेस्रो लिङ्ग) भन्ने शब्दसँग नजिकवाट सम्बन्धित छन्।

यौन अभिमुखिकरण (Sexual Orientation): यसले कुनै पनि ब्यक्तिको यौनिक वा भावनात्मक आकर्षणको दिशा बोध गर्दछ, र त्यो आकर्षण बिपरित लिङ्ग भएको ब्यक्ति प्रति वा समानलिङ्ग भएको ब्यक्ति प्रति वा सबै लिङ्ग प्रति हुन सक्दछ।

तेस्रो प्रकृतीको ब्यक्ति (Transgender): यस्तो ब्यक्ति जस्को लैङ्गिक पहिचान (Gender identity), लैङ्गिक प्रस्तुती (Gender Expression) , ब्यक्तित्व अदि समाजमा परम्परागतरुपमा महिला र पुरुषबाट अपेक्षा गरिएको भन्दा फरक हुन्छ।

मेटी: पुर्वी नेपाल तिरबाट आएको शब्द, यस्ता पुरुषलिङ्गि (Male) ब्यक्तिहरु लाई इङ्गित गदर्छ जो आफुलाई महिला जस्तै ठान्दछन्। मेटीहरुको बिपरितलिङ्गि, समलिङ्गि वा दुइलिङ्गि पुरुष भन्दा अलग पहिचान हुन्छ र आफुलाई समाजमा महिला जस्तै प्रस्तुत गर्ने गर्दछन्। पारिवारिक तथा सामाजिक दवाबका कारण महिलासँग बिबाह गर्नु परेता पनि मेटीहरुको यौन आकर्षण तथा यौन सम्बँध भने "मर्द" सँगनै हुने गर्दछ। मेटीहरु पनि आफुलाई तेस्रो प्रकृतीको ब्यक्ति ठान्दछन्।

सिङ्गारु: मेटीजस्ता ब्यक्तिलाई पश्चिमी पहाडतिर सिङ्गारु भनिन्छ। मारुनी: त्यस्तै केटीको भेषमा नाच्ने पुरुषलिङ्गि ब्यक्तिलाई मारुनी भनिन्छ। मौगिया वा कोथी: मेटीजस्ता ब्यक्तिलाई तराईतिर मौगिया वा कोथी भनिन्छ। फुलुमुलु: मेटीजस्ता ब्यक्तिलाई हिमाली भेगमा फुलुमुलु भनिन्छ। आदि, आदि।।।

हिजडा: हिजडा समुदाय नेपालको तराई तथा भारतमा करिब ४००० बर्ष भन्दा बढी पहिलेदेखी रँहदै आएका छन्। हिजडाहरु तेस्रो प्रकृती (जसलाई "पिङ्गला" भनिने शिब-शक्ति रुप, शिबको अर्ध पुरुष तथा अर्ध महिलाको रुप, सम्द्यिन्छन्) भएको कारण आफुलाई पाबित्र वा अलौकिक ठान्दछन्। हिजडा हुन चाहने ब्यक्ति (जो जन्मदा पुरुषलिङ्गि भएर जन्मेको हुन्छ) ले हिजडा समुदायमा आफुलाई सामेल गर्नु पर्छ तथा बिभिन्न नियम तथा अनुशासन (जस्तै महिलाको भेषमा उठबस गर्नु पर्ने, उठेर पिसाव गर्नु नहुने आदि) पालन गर्नु पर्ने हुन्छ। जस्ले यो समुदायको यी नियम तथा अनुशासन हरु सख्त रुपले पालन गर्न सक्छ ती ब्यक्तिहरुले मात्र "निर्वाण" (लिङ्ग काटी पूर्णरुपमा हिजडा हुने प्रकृया) लिन पाउँछन्।

यौन अँग परिवर्तित ब्यक्ति (Transsexual): तेस्रो प्रकृतीको ब्यक्ति जस्ले आफ्नो यौन अँग आफ्नो लैङ्गिक पहिचान (Gender identity) अनुसार पुरुष वा महिला बन्नेगरी परिबर्तन गरेका छन्।

अन्तरलिङ्गि (Intersexual): यस्ता ब्यक्ति जो जन्मदा नै सारिरीक वा यौन अङ्गको हिसावले सामाजिक अपेक्षा अनुरुप स्त्रीलिङ्गि (Female) वा पुरुषलिङ्गि (Male) छुट्टिदैनन्। ऐतिहासिक तवरले, चिकित्सक समुदायले यसलाई हेर्माफ्रोडाइट्स (hermaphrodites) भन्ने बिल्ला लगाई बच्चाको यौनअङ्ग सच्चाउने सल्यकृया (sex reassignment surgery) गरिदिने चलन कयौँ देशमा छ। तर समकालिन दृश्टिकोण यस्तो जबरजस्ति बच्चाको यौनअङ्ग सच्चाउने सल्यकृया अभ्यास (arbitrary practice of gender reassignment surgery) लाई वलजफती लैङ्गिक पहिचान बनाइदिने र यौनअङ्ग बिगरिदिने भनी चुनौती दिने गरेको छ। किनभने बच्चाको लैङ्गिक पहिचान (Gender identity) पछि कस्तो हुन्छ भनेर अहिले भन्न सकिन्न।

दुई आत्मा भएको(Two-spirited): आदिवसीहरुमा केहि ब्यक्तिहरु आफूलाई महिला, पुरुष दुबैको आत्मा भएको मान्दछन् (न की समलिङ्गि, दुइलिङ्गी वा तेस्रो प्रकृतीको ब्यक्ति)।

दुइलिङ्गि (Bisexual): यस्तो ब्यक्ति जो सारिरीक तथा भावनात्मक रुपले महिला तथा पुरुष दुबै सित आकर्षित हुन्छ।

बिपरितलिङ्गि (Heterosexual): यस्तो ब्यक्ति जो सारिरीक तथा भावनात्मक रुपले आफुभन्दा बिपरितलिङ्ग भएको ब्यक्ति प्रति आकर्षित हुन्छ।

समलिङ्गि (Homosexual): यस्तो ब्यक्ति जो सारिरीक तथा भावनात्मक रुपले आफुजस्तै समानलिङ्ग भएको ब्यक्ति प्रति आकर्षित हुन्छ। समलिङ्गी ब्यक्तिलाई अँग्रेजि भषामा "होमोसेक्सुअल" भनिएता पनि "गे" शब्द बढि प्रयोग गरिन्छ भने महिला समलिङ्गिलाई "लेस्वियन" भन्ने चलन पनि छ।

गोप्य रहने( Closet): बहिश्कार हुने डरले आफ्नो लैङ्गिक पहिचान (gender identity) वा यौन अभिमुखुकरण (Sexual orientation) आफु कामगर्ने ठाँउ, बिधालय, घर-परिवार वा साथीभाइ बिच लुकाउनु।

खुल्ने(Coming out): १) यो समलिङ्गि, दुईलिङ्गि वा तेस्रो प्रकृतीको ब्यक्तिले आफ्नो लैङ्गिक पहिचान (Gender identity) वा यौन अभिमुखिकरण (Sexual orientation) को पत्तो पाउने र त्यसलाई स्वीकार्ने तथा यो तथ्यलाई आफ्नो ब्यक्तिगत तथा सामाजिक जीबनमा उतार्ने प्रकृया हो। २) आफ्नो लैङ्गिक पहिचान (Gender identity) वा यौन अभिमुखुकरण (Sexual orientation) को बारेमा अरु समक्ष गर्वसित खुल्ने प्रकृया हो।

समलिङ्गि प्रती घृणा वा डर (Homophobia): पूर्वाग्रह, बिभेद वा नकारात्मक धारणाले ग्रसित भएर उपज हुने समलिङ्गि प्रतीको घृणा वा डर हो। समलिङ्गि प्रती घृणा लाई "सँस्थागत डर, धृणा, पूर्वाग्रह वा नकारात्मक धारणा" भनेर पनि परिभाषित गरिन्छ जसले समलिङ्गिहरुलाई अदृश्यहुन वा लुक्न बाध्य तुल्याँउछ, बिभेदको शिकार बनाउँछ, तीरष्कृत गराँउछ वा अन्यायको शिकार पनि बनाउँछ।

बिपरितलिङ्गबाद (Heterosexism): सबै ब्यक्ति बिपरितलिङ्गिनै हुन्छन् भन्ने मानयता राखी यो नै उत्तम तथा माथिल्लो हो भन्नु बिपरितलिङ्गबाद हो। बिपरितलिङ्गबाद प्राय शुक्ष्म रुपमा प्रस्तुत हुने गर्दछ जस्तै गैर-बिपरितलिङ्गि वा तेस्रो प्रकृतीको ब्यक्तिको पहिचान, ब्यबहार, सम्बन्ध तथा समुदायको इन्कारी, अनाबस्यक आलोचना गर्नु बा लञ्छना लगाउनु। भेदखोल्ने(Outing): ब्यक्तिको अनुमतिबिना उसको लैङ्गिक पहिचान (Gender identity) वा यौन अभिमुखुकरण (Sexual orientation) सार्बजनिक गरिदिने काम। यस्तो भेदखोल्नेकाम निकै अनादरपूर्ण र (संभाबित रुपले) खतरा पूर्ण पनि हुन्छ। —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raju Lama (talk • contribs) 03:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the english language wikipedia. Does anyone want to translate this? Zazaban (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Google translation is in the drop box above. And it makes no sense. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 03:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe someone who reads HindiNepali can make some actual sense of it. LadyofShalott 03:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing in the box. Zazaban (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Right, like I said in my last edit summary, it's actually Nepali, not Hindi.. and unfortunately there seems to be no online translator for Nepali. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 04:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone will respond, but I posted a request for help at WikiProject Nepal - figuring it has the highest chance of having people capable of reading the post. LadyofShalott 04:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm copying the following reply from the talk age of the Nepal project. LadyofShalott 20:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand Nepali beyond what a native Hindi speaker can, but what that user has done is to copy-paste definitions of those words in Nepali (Gender, Sex, Eunuch etc.) from somewhere. Its not an attempt to communicate with anyone so I think you should simply ignore it :) Amplitude101 (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible misuse of words

I'm not a native English speaker, so I'm not sure if I'm right or wrong, but I don't understand the following sentence in Forms of relationships section:

Research indicates that many lesbians and gay men want and have committed and durable relationships.

The marked word and concerns me — if it's a mistake it should be corrected (but how? what did the editor want to say here exactly?); and if there's no mistake it should be rephrased to make it easier to read and comprehend.

--K!r!lleXXI (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what makes it confusing. It just means that many lesbians and gay men want and have relationships that are both committed and durable. garik (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Just as I saved that edit, it occurred to me why you may be having trouble with it! "Committed" here is an adjective meaning "involving commitment"; it's not a past participle that forms a present perfect with the "have"! garik (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, I've edited the sentence to help avoid such a misinterpretation. garik (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, shoot! I'm so embarrassed! That's exactly what I misinterpreted — adjectives and verbs! I was reading the sentence over and over again and it just didn't make sense to me. The sentence was probably a little bit overloaded with "and"s to understand it correctly. Thank you for your edit, and your time, and your addressing this issue. --K!r!lleXXI (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
By the way, maybe it would sound better just as you suggested in your first explanation? Like this: "Research indicates that many lesbians and gay men want and have relationships that are both committed and durable." --K!r!lleXXI (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

is not a mental illness

This is a fairly subtle point.

The article says "the consensus of medical and scientific professional organizations is that homosexuality is not a mental illness". I changed it to "should not be considered a mental illness" but got reverted with a comment "Professional org's position is more descriptive than didactic".

It may be argued that professional org's position is, in fact, didactic. There is no universal definition of a "mental illness". Wikipedia defines it as "a clinically significant behavioral or psychological pattern that occurs in an individual and is usually associated with distress, disability or increased risk of suffering", which clearly applies to homosexuals (at least in less liberal countries). More importantly, to my knowledge, there were no fundamental changes in understanding of homosexuality since 1960's that would've changed the professional opinion. This reclassification appears to be a victory of the gay rights movement rather than the result of scientific progress. If that's not true, the article should probably be clearer on the subject. --Itinerant1 (talk) 09:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that I'm not taking a properly international view of this, but here's my take (as the reverter). When the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from DSM, that meant they no longer considered it a mental illness. Other medical associations, as well as the American Psychological Association, followed suit. Some of those groups may specify in their literature that it shouldn't be considered a mental illness, but I am unaware of evidence that they have a consensus to do so; the consensus is simply that it isn't a mental illness.
Your reasoning about "distress, disability or increased risk of suffering" makes some sense, but I see two problems with it. First, it seems likely that such "symptoms" stem not from people's sexual orientation per se but from negative reinforcement from the culture surrounding them. (Consider other minorities in relevant contexts: wherever there is oppression, there are "symptoms".) Second, how WP defines mental illness isn't terribly relevant to anything except perhaps the quality of the mental illness article. How major medical and psychological organizations define it is what's important here.
The same could be said about pedophiles - in the absence of negative reinforcement from the culture, most of them would be happy campers. However that is still a DSM-IV disorder. --Itinerant1 (talk) 09:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Probably you're only making a misguided, apples-and-oranges comparison here. The other possibility, which I'm not prepared to believe, is that you're being deliberately provocative by likening a pathology associated with child abuse to a sexual orientation. Assuming the former, I'll simply point out that I was using the word "minorities" in its generally accepted sociopolitical sense, not a purely statistical sense. There is extensive evidence that minority status in certain cultures can cause psychological difficulties. The section you edited contains three sentences, all sourced, which address that very point. Did you somehow miss that? Rivertorch (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
This discussion of the definition of "minority" seems irrelevant to me.--Itinerant1 (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
If context means nothing, then it is irrelevant. Rivertorch (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, when the American Psychiatric Association delisted homosexuality, the gay rights movement was still in its infancy and had precious little political capital. Did the movement exert what pressure it could? Sure. But the decision to delist had been years in the making, and it would have been made anyway. The contents of DSM may not be immune to outside influence (the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, for example, may hold some sway behind the scenes), but to my knowledge civil rights activists don't get a say. Fringe civil rights activists 36 years ago definitely didn't get a say. Rivertorch (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I found the original APA statement dating back to 1973. It makes explicit references to "homosexual activist groups", "a small but vocal band of activist homosexuals who defensively attempt to prove that they are not sick", and mentions concerns over "the denial of civil rights to individuals whose only crime is that their sexual orientation is to members of the same sex." On the subject of the matter itself, APA's opinion was as follows: "homosexuality, per se, does not meet the requirements for a psychiatric disorder since, as noted above, many homosexuals are quite satisfied with their sexual orientation and demonstrate no generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning", even though "a significant proportion of homosexuals are quite bothered by, in conflict with, or wish to change their sexual orientation", and they were not saying that homosexuality is "normal" or as valuable as heterosexuality. --Itinerant1 (talk) 09:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
And this relates to your edit in what way? Rivertorch (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
this relates to your statement that civil rights activism was not a factor in the decision, when it fact it was one of the primary drivers behind it, as attested by the APA statement itself. --Itinerant1 (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
No, the APA statement doesn't attest to anything of the sort. It acknowledges the ativists and it mentions civil rights; it does not indicate cause and effect with regard to the decision to delist. Rivertorch (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Statements such as "More importantly, to my knowledge, there were no fundamental changes in understanding of homosexuality since 1960's that would've changed the professional opinion. This reclassification appears to be a victory of the gay rights movement rather than the result of scientific progress. If that's not true, the article should probably be clearer on the subject." are very ignorant and people who are making such statements should not be editing these kinda articles b4 they read articles like this: Evelyn_Hooker#Experiment Phoenix of9 (talk) 06:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
If this finding by Evelyn Hooker was indeed an important factor in APA's decision to remove homosexuality from its handbook of disorders, it should definitely be made clear in the article. There are no links to Evelyn Hooker or the experiment in the article at the moment. --Itinerant1 (talk) 09:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
No mainstream, respectable science-based or professinal organization considers homosexuality a mental illness. But even if it were true that this is because the APA bowed to "activist pressure" in 1973, that was 36 years ago, and people didn't just stop doing research when that resolution was adopted: study after study has been done in the intervening years, and all conclude that homosexuality, in and of itself, is not a mental illness. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The article writes:"The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has stated "some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime".Well, when did American Psychiatric Association became claiming that gays weren't mads.I read that only in 1973, this became rule.This site: http://www.soulforce.org/article/642 writes:"It's been 25 years since the American Psychiatric Association (APA) voted to delete homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders and issued a strong statement of support for gay rights. A forum marking this anniversary drew a standing-room-only crowd at the APA's annual meeting in Toronto, Ontario, in June,[1998]".This site is correct?Agre22 (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)agre22

I addressed the APA issue with Dr. Joseph Merlino

I am unsure why it was removed, and I don't care enough to search through diffs, but in my interview with one of the country's leading psychiatrists, and an expert on this subject, I specifically addressed this issue and used in one of the articles:

DS: The declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder was a controversial debate in the psychiatric community, and it is still presented 30 years later as if it is this raging debate, and that it is just activism that was the impetus for change as opposed to any real hard science.

JM: It's true! It was. It was activism. But there was not hard science to say that homosexuality was a disorder or an illness, and that was the reason why activists took aim at psychiatry and psychoanalysis and challenged them to come up with the data to support that position. And they couldn't! The only data they could come up with were psychoanalytic theories that were not data. The data that they called data was presented from small groups of clinical populations of people who are gay who didn't like or didn't want or couldn't accept being gay. That was the population from which this so-called data was extracted. What the gay activists did in the 1970's was pull out the true data, the scientific data that they could find, and presented it to the diagnosis committee of the American Psychiatric Association and persuaded them that the science that did exist was on the side of homosexuality not being a disease or a disorder. That is why the diagnosis committee--the Nomenclature Committee, which is what it was called--suggested to the Board of the American Psychiatric Association that it be removed, and it was.

DS: If the issue was presented today, would it be 58% still, or would it be a greater number that do not believe homosexuality is a mental illness?

JM: I think so. There are still clusters of holdouts who believe--and it's traditionally a psychoanalysts who still see it as a disorder--but those people who are really dwindling. In fact, one of the last leaders of that movement, Charles Socarides, died a few years ago. I think that particular view is dying out.

DS: But it still has credence?

JM: It still has credence in groups that consider themselves scientists, but really aren't. It's more of a religious movement. I think we've come full circle. Psychiatry thinking there is something wrong with being homosexual really came out of the Judeo-Christian movement for the past 2,000 years. We moved away from that and to organized medicine through psychiatry, taking the position that it's not an evil in terms of the individual; it's an illness. The thinking it was a problem of the individual came from the psychoanalytic movement, which held sway in American psychiatry through the 1950's. American psychiatry beforehand never took up the issue of homosexuality; it was never even something that was thought about in terms of was it an illness or wasn't it an illness? It was just presumed, it was accepted it was an illness. Until that was challenged in the late 1960's, early 1970's.

I'm not sure why this was removed, but the basic information, whether it comes from my interview, Merlino's book, or other sources, is illuminating. -->David Shankbone 18:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It wasnt removed, the link to interview is there but the info wasnt in the main body of the text. Fixed it now. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Ahmadinejad @ Columbia -- No Homosexuals in Iran!". Retrieved 2009-01-22.
  2. ^ Fathi, Nazila (2007-09-30). "Despite Denials, Gays Insist They Exist, if Quietly, in Iran". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-10-01.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homosexuality/Archive_16&oldid=1142439624"