Talk:Sexual preference

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Own article[edit]

Should this article be its own, rather than a redirect? There is only a one sentence blurb on the article that this redirects to, where as their is sufficient reliable sources, that discussion Sexual preference as a choice, to make the idea/subject itself notable regardless of whether individual editors believe it correct or incorrect.

I will invite interested editors per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this view has significant enough attention to gain an article. Toa Nidhiki05 01:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Lots of sources support a separate article. Binksternet (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we should wait 7 days to get other peoples comments. If there are no objects by the point, I say we start on creating the article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Seems agreeable, or perhaps we could hold an RfC to get a wider base so work does not get deleted by an AfD. Toa Nidhiki05
I think posting a please see at the related wikiprojects is sufficient, but if other interested editors wish to RfC, they are free to do so. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Agree with a separate article, it's notable enough. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles should be about the underlying thing, not the choice of phrasing. Can those thinking their should be a separate article define exactly what the difference between the two phenomena would be? μηδείς (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that there is an underlying difference in the two concepts. One is a theory that ones sexuality is a product only of biology, the other is a theory that ones sexuality has a significant factor of individual choice. This being the case, than it a "choice of phrasing". --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't that mean that it could be adequately covered at the existing article on Sexual orientation, which goes into extensive detail on the possible factors influencing sexual orientation? Roscelese (talkcontribs) 16:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Presently the concept of sexual preference is given one sentence; period.
They are two different theories on the same subject, sexuality. As two different theories, they should both, given that both have sufficient reliable sources to exist, have their own articles.
For instance, both the Republican Party, Democrat(ic) Party, Libertarian Party, and others are all political parties in the United States. They could all be discussed thoroughly in an article about Political parties in the United States; however, each is independently notable, and therefore warrant their own article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
That's incorrect. "Sexuality" is far broader in meaning than "sexual orientation," which refers to the sex or sexes to which a person is attracted and does not imply a biological basis. To use your party analogy, what you're suggesting is more akin to having a separate article on "Democrat Party" because that's how some conservatives like to refer to the Democratic Party. We have an article on the phrase "Democrat Party," but we don't treat it as an entirely separate thing, just as it would be wrong to treat "sexual preference" and sexual orientation as entirely separate things instead of having a main article on sexual orientation and a sub-article (and some sections) devoted to explaining possible environmental factors. Roscelese (talkcontribs) 19:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
It maybe be the belief of some that it is incorrect, but there are sufficient references to show that it is its own subject, related to, but independent of "sexual orientation". --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so what are three good references that distinguish between sexual preference and sexual orientation? μηδείς (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
"Sexual preference: "The preference one shows by having a sexual interest in members of the same, opposite, or either sex."
Sexual orientation: "The direction of one's sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes, especially a direction seen to be dictated by physiologic rather than sociologic forces. Replaces sexual preference in most contemporary uses."
"Sexual orientation is not a choice. Preference implies choice."
"There is earnest conversation among scholars in the field of homosexuality about the differences between sexual orientation (implying an internal way of being) and sexual preference (implying a more self-consciously chosen way of being)."
"Sexual orientation" implies that the gender of an individual's partner is part of that individual's identity and not a matter of choice whereas "sexual preference" does not."
"Their language choice of "sexual orientation" rather than "sexual preference" reflects their assumption about sexual behavior as a fixed identity of the human being, rather than a set of behaviors with a type of partner (same or other sex) that can and often does vary in a lifetime."
"Even the words that are used to describe gay, lesbian, and bisexual identity are complicated and hotly debated. For example, the term sexual preference, once considered "correct" for describing gay, lesbian, and bisexual phenomena, is now rejected by many because it seems to reduce a core identity or master status to a matter of taste, like whether one likes chocolate or vanilla ice cream."
"For example, there is a difference between the terms "sexual orientation" and "sexual preference"."
These are but a few examples of how both terms differ in concept, whereas they both relate to Human sexuality.
It is not for us, as editors, with our own individual POVs, to determine whether a POV is correct or incorrect, but it is within the core principles of our community that if a subject is notable that it should be written about without POV, and each concept given due weight. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Er, pretty much everything you just linked refers to it as a difference in terminology only rather than separating the concepts, ie. exactly what I said above. Roscelese (talkcontribs) 19:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
That is one editors opinion. What I read above shows there is a definite difference in concepts. One suggesting that human sexuality is unchanging, like ones race, or gender (which even then there are things regarding gender identity), and the other suggest the concept that human sexuality is guided by life choices.
Either way, there appears to be sufficient number of editors who approve of the subject having its own article. That being said, I shall begin a stub tomorrow. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
After looking at the listed links, I have changed my mind. I think the psychological difference between the two terms is small enough to be encompassed in one article about both. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There are many sources that treat the two terms as synonyms, and many even suggests that sexual preference is determined by birth:

So, i don't agree with creating this article. It's only matter of terminology.--В и к и в и н д T a L k 00:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The above quotes appear to be arguments in favor of the concept of "sexual orientation", and is an attempt to repudiate the concept of "sexual preference". As such, the above sources can be used in a criticism section for this article, giving it due weight within that section. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • oppose without prejudice I am not ideologically opposed to two separate article were there a verifiable distinction between things. But the sources listed above (blogs, side mentions of the fact that there are terminological disputes) don't establish that scholars generally accept the two different terms as referring to two real and essentially different phenomena. As a side note, I see sexual orientation as the far better term, my answer to the question of sexual preference being a simple yes. μηδείς (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps this could be addressed in a terminology section. It appears that some usage of the term use it as a synonym of sexual orientation, while other sources view it as a separate concept of human sexuality. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd support including a short section on terminology in the Sexual orientation article. Roscelese (talkcontribs) 03:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
How about a terminology section within the proposed article.
Although there is a body of reliable sources that see Sexual Preference as a synonym of Sexual Orientation, there is also a body of relable sources that has it as a different concept of human sexuality. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, that was what you were suggesting. Well, no, that would be like having an entirely separate article on "Democrat Party" with a terminology section as a concession to the fact that it was actually a term for Democratic Party, as the sources you yourself provided illustrate. My reasons for opposing a separate article on the same thing (ie. a POV fork) remain the same. Roscelese (talkcontribs) 15:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Some of the sources above indicate it is a synonym, other sources above indicate it is a different concept of human sexuality. Therefore, there are different POVs regarding human sexuality, with different terms being used to describe those POVs. Therefore, the concept of "Sexual preference" should be give due weight as much as that of "Sexual orientation". --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
That's an incorrect reading of the sources you yourself provided. They all agree that the difference is in terminology only, with "sexual orientation" being preferred to "sexual preference" as a term for the sex or sexes to which one is attracted because the latter suggests choice. Nothing you linked says it's a separate concept. Are there other sources you're hiding up your sleeve, or are you just misreading? Roscelese (talkcontribs) 16:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for not keeping with WP:CIVIL by attacking me, rather than the provided references. Ones reading of the references may differ, thus why our views differ based on the same references. That doesn't make your reading, or my reading of the references any less valid. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Why should I attack the provided references, since they support my position? What is incorrect is your reading of them, not the references themselves. Roscelese (talkcontribs) 01:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)