![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The same problem I've seen on another article: quoting people who are not involved directly with research on sexual orientation, but make very broad and bold statements without providing any reference for their claims. I have deleted the same quote by Michael King, who is a professor of psychiatry specialised in the area of primary care, on the topic of sexual orientation. For the same reason I will proceed to delete the quote, because someone who is not an authority in the field should not be quoted making over-arching statements on the state of knowledge in this area of research. What is more, it's important to quote people who are not involved in any politics on the issue of sexual orientation. Now, professor King may be an excellent psychiatrist and a great person, but he did not publish anything that is quoted in the literature on sexual orientation and apparently he is very actively involved in taking political stances using his professional status to defend sexual minority rights. Given this context, please let's try to keep these articles as NPOV as possible and only quote people involved in sexual politics only if they have produced some scientific material relevant for the subject and of real significance. Otherwise, a little bit of research can give any reader the impression that we are editing this article to influence others' opinions using the words of advocates. I think we can do better than that. Thanks. PS - I will now proceed to make the changes I announced earlier on, on the brain-scanning study inacuracy. Aliasflavius ( talk) 20:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
In the "Physiological" section of differences between orientations, there is a statement which is not in line with the referenced study.
“ | Three regions of the brain (medial prefrontal cortex, left hippocampus, and right amygdala) are more active in gay men than non-gay men when exposed to sexually arousing material. | ” |
If you read the study from footnote 56 (the Safron et al. (2007) study), the conclusion is that the group difference was observed only for the amygdala region. What is more, one neuroscientist commented on this study that the (amygdala) difference between groups was so small that perhaps the main finding of this study is that "hetero" and "homo" male brains react similarly to their preferred stimuli. The authors of the study cautioned any interpretation of this study to take into account that the study cannot say if the differences were the result of different levels of arousal and similar processing or similar levels of arousal but different processing. In lay terms, scientists cannot say if people of different orientations use the same brain regions similarly for different sexes but they are more or less aroused by those sexes or because they use the same brain regions in different ways, which leads to arousal in the same regions but for different sexes. Where did the author of this statement get this conclusion from? If no reason, based on the study, is offered I will make the necessary correction soon. Aliasflavius ( talk) 20:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
“ | For the most part, homosexual and heterosexual men showed very similar patterns of activation (albeit to different erotic stimuli). One possible exception was the amygdala, in which homosexual men showed greater activational differences between preferred and nonpreferred erotic stimuli compared with heterosexual men. However, this difference was not hypothesized a priori, was not large, and was the only group difference found out of many tested. Thus, this finding needs replication."(Reference: Debra A. Hope (editor), What is Sexual Orientation and Do Women Have One? (presentation by J.M. Bailey), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Volume 54 p. 47, Springer Science, 2009.) | ” |
The sources you gave for "Gay men have longer penises" need to be seriously reconsidered, as there is no reputable scientific evidence to verify the validity of your claims. Logically, it would be the exact opposite.
Furthermore, "Gay men report..." is not valid, because of course they are going to say they have larger penises. What guy wouldn't?
Where it says "Gay men report..." I don't think that the scientists just asked some gay people "Do you have a larger penis than the average straight man?" and all the test people in the survey said "yes". They probably asked some straight men and some gay men "How large is your penis". Now, assuming each group on average exaggerates equally (which I admit is up for debate, though there is no a priori reason to expect one group to lie more than the other), then the results are reliable. More formally, if the reported average length of a gay man's penis is greater than the reported length of a straight man's, and both figures are liable to the same systematic error, it is likely that the errors will roughly cancel and that the reported difference in size will be quite accurate.
We need to play a game of Smear-the-Queer wikipedia style.
In the pheromones section it refers to the results of Lesbian women as "somewhat confused", but I can not find it in the source. Can somebody please elaborate? Thoughtbox ( talk) 18:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC) [1] I too could not find any source to fit such claim yet I did find an article that states just the opposite. Nikkidimble ( talk) 06:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Teenage girls and young women who identify as Lesbian or bisexual are just "going through a phase" and that most of those women will eventually settle down as heterosexual.
The scholarly research on this topic does not provide strong evidence in support of this assumption. On the contrary, the most careful, longitudinal studies - in which researchers keep track of the same women for many years - suggests just the opposite. For example, Professor Lisa Diamond followed a cohort of women for 10 years: she found that over those ten years, these women were more likely to ADOPT the bisexual label than they were to RELINQUISH that label
Please keep Lesbian and Bisexual seperate as they are two seperate identities. I think it's more appropriate to include "some women" rather than all women who are lesbian or bisexual as many Lesbians do not ever become bisexual or adopt a bisexual label. Thanks. -seeker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.6.20 ( talk) 19:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I removed the bolded statements "sexual orientation" and "biology." The emphasis does not appear in the original, and the quote's relevance to these topics is obvious from it's inclusion in the article "Biology and sexual orientation." I consider this a minor edit, but the emphasis could return, with a notation "emphasis added." Any thoughts or preferances? Biccat ( talk) 19:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Estimates of heritability of homosexuality | ||
---|---|---|
Study | Male | Female |
Hershberger, 1997 | 0% | 48% |
Bailey et al., 2000 | 30% | |
Kendler et al., 2000 | 28–65% | |
Kirk et al., 2000 | 30% | 50–60% |
Bearman et al., 2002 | 7.7% | 5.3% |
I have removed the heretability table until it can be corrected. Bearman et al did not estimate the heretabilities of same sex attraction to be 7.7% and 5.5% in males and females respectively. Those numbers refer to the concordance of homosexual attraction in MZ twins when at least one feels same sex attraction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domminico ( talk • contribs) 23:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Scans see 'gay brain differences' 01:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The article reads, 'Biology and sexual orientation is the research within the field of biology with regard to investigating the nature of sexual orientation in humans and its causes.' Sorry to whoever wrote this, but it sounds awful. Just to start with, the beginning, 'Biology and sexual orientation is the research within the field of biology...' does not make sense. This needs to be rewritten so that it makes sense. Skoojal ( talk) 10:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Well it's a moot point now, thanks to a fly-by edit by Joshuajohanson ( talk · contribs) presumably in response to this [1]. MickMacNee ( talk) 21:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The article reads, 'In the topic of biology and sexual orientation, ongoing scientific research is examining the possibility of there existing a specific biological contribution to the ultimate development of a specific sexual orientation in human beings.' Sorry, but that still sounds awful. Just to begin with, that sentence should not start with the words, 'In the topic of biology and sexual orientation.' The rest is pretty bad too (please don't use the word 'specific' twice in one sentence), and perhaps POVish. Skoojal ( talk) 04:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Why not, I say. I can't see a good reason for keeping them separate. Much (maybe most) research on sexual orientation is biological now anyway. If there is no "Non-Biological Influences on Sexual Orientation" article, I can't see any reason why there should be a "Biology and Sexual Orientation" article. Skoojal ( talk) 07:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Our article says of Långström et al study "They found that homosexuality was largely due to environmental factors, not genetics." and yet the linked to article Society's attitudes have little impact on choice of sexual partner with blurbs by Långström says the exact opposite. "The results show, that familial and public attitudes might be less important for our sexual behaviour than previously suggested", says Associate Professor Niklas Långström, one of the involved researchers. "Instead, genetic factors and the individual's unique biological and social environments play the biggest role." The study reports the exact opposite of what this article says it does. The linked-to article reports "Overall, the environment shared by twins (including familial and societal attitudes) explained 0-17% of the choice of sexual partner, genetic factors 18-39% and the unique environment 61-66%. The individual's unique environment includes, for example, circumstances during pregnancy and childbirth, physical and psychological trauma (e.g., accidents, violence, and disease), peer groups, and sexual experiences." this seems totally at odds with how it is portrayed here. Pete.Hurd ( talk) 21:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Pete, Genetic factors came in at 18% to 39%, environmental factors came in at a whoppping 61% to 66%. Social factors came in a mere 0% to 17%. BTW, I just can't get the reference hooked up to save my life. I think it's because it's in some way hidden. Hopefully whoever runs that can hook it up properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.131.47 ( talk) 21:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I should add that Michael Bailey recently stated that another massive twin study was due out soon. I think he implied it would be the best yet. Uggh... didn't sign in for last comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duper-Super-1000 ( talk • contribs) 21:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Pete if you read the blurb on the study and the press releases related to this study "environment" does not mean socialization. They believe it is largely due to biological environment, not social. According to this study the biological environment is significantly more impactful than genetics. 18% to 39% for genes is much smaller than 61% to 66% for environment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duper-Super-1000 ( talk • contribs) 21:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Pete I quoted the exact release from the study. Genes came in way lower than environment. 18 to 39 for genes is way lower than 61 to 66 for environment. I'm not sure what you are getting at.
Pete, the release which I included in quotes stated several things that environment could potentially include. Many, if not most of these factors were biological. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duper-Super-1000 ( talk • contribs) 22:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Pete, you are correct. The text in quotes came directly from their study and it explained what the researchers meant by environment. Most of what they listed was biological. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.131.47 ( talk) 22:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
From the article:
Is it original research? Darimoma ( talk) 00:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
(emphasis in original) Now, I could quibble with some of the details there, but I think that accurately describes the view of mainstream scientists on the matter (and clearly shows that the point in question is far from OR). Note also, I read about a dozen or so intro psych texts this summer (all candidates to be our new intro psych course textbook) and none of them had anything really different to say from the quote above (and when I was teaching a more advance Behavioural Genetics course, the textbook said about the same thing as well. Pete.Hurd ( talk) 19:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)"However, scientific research has failed to identify any aspect of parenting that has a significant impact on sexual orientation (Bell, Weinberg, & Hammersmith, 1981), and indeed, children raised by homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are equally likely to become heterosexual adults (Patterson, 1995). There is also little support for the idea that a person's early sexual encounters have a lasting impact on his or her sexual oreintation (Bohan, 1996). On the other hand, there is considerable evidence to suggest that genetics plays a role in determining sexual orientation. Gay men and bisexuals tend to have a larger proportion of gay and lesbian siblings than do heterosexuals (Bailey et al., 1999). Furthermore, the idential twin of a gay man (with whom he shares 100% of his genes) has a 50% chance of being homosexual, whereas the fraternal twin or non twin brother of a gay man (with whom he shares 50% of his genes) has only a 15% chance (Bailey & Pillard, 1991; Gladue, 1994). A similar pattern has emerged in studies of women (Bailey et al., 1993). In addition, some evidence suggests that the fetal environment may play a role in determining sexual orientation and that high levels of androgens predispose the fetus -whether male or female- later to develop a sexual preference for women (Ellis & Ames, 1987; Mayer-Bahlberg et al., 1995). Of course, biology cannot be the sole determinant of a person's sexual orientation because, as these figures indicate, homosexual men and women often have twins who are genetically identical, who shared their fetal environment, and who are heterosexual nonetheless."
It's published. New texts for the fall term typically have the next years date, I donno why... must be the same marketing think as new cars Pete.Hurd ( talk) 15:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Is this a part of sociobiology? I don't see any cross-references between the two articles, but the research seems similar (investigating to what extent social behavior is determined by biology). -- Delirium ( talk) 07:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I think this may be a useful resource, but I'm not quite sure about how to go about incorporating the information. [5]
Particularly of note: Camperio Ciani emphasises that, rather than being a "gay gene", this unidentified genetic factor is likely to promote sexual attraction to men in both men and women. This would influence a woman's attitude rather than actually increasing her fertility, making her likely to have more children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.156.9 ( talk) 05:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
A new study by Andrew Francis from Emory University found no Fraternal Birth Order Effect. His sample was large, over 10,000 participants. I personally believe in a biological explanation but it looks like this one might not be it. Maybe someone would like to tackle this one. [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duper-Super-1000 ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't take a quantum leap of cognition to accept that hormones created in the fetal body do in fact steer the growth of the rest of the organism. However, there is a big difference between hormones which are produced within the placenta, and hormones which are outside of it and presumably blocked by it. The tone of this article seems to have difficulty with the proposition that fetal hormone need not equal maternal hormone. If it came from the fetus, then obviously it's a matter of fetal DNA producing the hormone, not the mother's. Tcaudilllg ( talk) 11:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm taking out the following part of the section, because the sources do not provide the stated conclusions:
"Another form of research was done by Dr. Savic. Dr. Savic uses PET scans to see the brain activity while letting people smell different types of pheromones. Savic used two compounds that resemble the male and female sex hormones. The first is 4,16-androstadien-3-one (AND) which is a derivative of testosterone produced in human axillary secretions in higher concentrations in men than in women. The second compound is oestra-1,3,5(10),16-tetraen-3-ol (EST) which is a substance resembling naturally occurring oestrogenes [2]. These are the pheromones that make men and women attracted to each other. When a man smells a woman's pheromone, EST, there is a degree of brain activity. The same happens to women for the pheromone AND. Savic found that gays had the similar brain activity as women when given the whiff of AND, and vice versa for lesbians [3]. Savic's findings imply that sexual orientation is determined prior to exposure to life’s environmental influences. Also, unlike some of the early researchers, Savic's research is less likely to cater to a gay political agenda or bias, as her field was originally epilepsy research. She inadvertently stumbled onto the pheromone sex differences while studying how smells might trigger temporal lobe epilepsy [4]."
What kind of peer-reviewed journal can salon.com be ? The paper simply finds a difference between brain reactions of homo- and heterosexual humans. There is no way to tell if this is hereditary or learnt later in life, and the original research paper does not state a single word concering this problem. Perhaps someone can reword this into a single sentence about the brain differences, but I personally do not see what the article gains from this, as the relevance is not clear (brain differences are already stated in several other sections). —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMaster17 ( talk • contribs) 13:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
In the old bad days – I think it was during the period 1870 - 1914 – there where claims of gays being more physically feminine and lesbians being more masculine. Yet the list of physiological differences for the very most part deals with differences in the brain. Only two paragraphs deals with differences visible on the outside. One describes a trait that is hard to notice (relative length of the fingers) and the other is the very opposite of the old claims (penis size). Does this mean that the old claims have been disproven? Please note that the homo- and bisexuals I have encountered have usually looked typically male and female. I have only met one homosexual and one bisexual that looked more androgynous. In fact, the most androgynous person I can come up with is a former neighbour who showed no indication of being anything but heterosexual. Once she was nearly hanged up by a gay who mistook her for a man!
2009-06-10 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
I've read that some researchers had made ties between prenatal hormones and contraception, suggesting that things like the birth control pill could have an impact on male sexual orientation. ADM ( talk) 02:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know of any study proving the essential concept in the evolution section (that homosexuality = less reproduction)? Before the 20th century, it was my understanding that exclusive homosexuality was very rare, and most homosexuals (if they existed) would still marry and reproduce . I would guess that nowadays gay people have fewer kids, but is this true over an evolutionary timescale? I think the section would be greatly improved if the initial claim is referenced, so at least all the arguments against are not tilting at windmills. Yob Mod 12:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
It would be interesting if the article would be able to go beyond classical heterosexual/homosexual divisions and try to find out whether certain clinical cases of sexual behavior are biologically determined. For instance, there is a debate among psychiatrists on whether child sexual abuse, rape and incest are biologically determined. If so, it would mean that certain ethnic groups would be more likely to have child abusers in their ranks. There were concerns about Ireland during the priest abuse crisis because so many pedophile priests were ethnically Irish. In that case, one could imagine the scientific use of eugenics in order to ethnically cleanse such ethnic groups from potential genetically pre-conditioned pedophiles. ADM ( talk) 05:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
This section is ONLY about a 1991 survey and yet it appears to be presented as a conclusion of the studies listed above -- which were pretty much all later than 1991.
Kinda hosed up. -- Blue Tie ( talk) 20:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
This isn't a terribly useful remark of mine, I know, but I just had to tell you guys that this quote is the funniest thing I ever read on wikipedia: "Gay men report, on an average, slightly longer and thicker penises than non-gay men"
I don't mean to argue with it's validity, the sources are probably smarter than me, but if it were true, it would be immensely funnier even. :) 85.145.116.131 ( talk) 00:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
No this isn't a troll topic. As many know in European Pole Cats males born to mostly females litters are often homosexual, showing disinterest in females and exhibiting full sexual behavior with males. I've heard it suggested, multiple times, that in such cases homosexuality in the males may serve an evolutionary advantage by decreasing the rate of inbreeding, have any studies been done to this effect? -- 67.58.84.222 ( talk) 17:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Explanation for this editation is fully compliant with Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Use up-to-date evidence Putting it back is obviously in contradiction with Wikipedia rules. -- Destinero ( talk) 21:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I find essential the following study and it's conclusion to be mentioned in the article: "The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation." http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Doi=262525 -- Destinero ( talk) 10:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
this section needs to reflect that while there are some studies that show a correlation, there are other studies that show there are not, some of which are even listed in that section. the way it is phrased currently is biased. i don't want to change it because i think someone will undo it, how can we fix it so it is neutral? Aisha9152 ( talk) 20:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a cited claim on this page that a study by sanders et al. in 1998 replicated the Xq28 genetic link to homosexuality, however, the only paper by sanders in 1998 about this topic I've found information on says that they DID NOT replicate the results. Can someone who has access to this book "Born Gay" please verify that it definitely says they replicated the results? The original paper seems to be unavailable, however, the one that says they did not replicate the results includes Sanders as an author, so it may be worth just deleting that statement altogether because it's kinda clearly untrue. Here's the paper that says it: http://www.springerlink.com/content/m232wur016t3nu37/ 149.157.1.154 ( talk) 13:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I have found an interesting science article that may be of great use to this article. It is about the genetics and evolution of homosexuality and the testable predictions made from mathematical models. Someone of expertise may want to take a look and do a bit of research. This could be a great contribution to the article!
Andrew Colvin ( talk) 03:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
While the title of this entry refers to "sexual orientation" it is in fact focused almost entirely upon hypothetical causes of homosexuality. Little or no space is devoted to summarizing research into the causes of heterosexuality or bisexuality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.171.42 ( talk) 19:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The article Homosexuality is undergoing revision. The revised version is available in the sandbox and the project documentation and coordination is taking place in the Sandbox's talk page.
I would appreciate if people joined in. I'm currently looking towards forming a team for the revision and future maintenance of this article.
Thank you,
Pdorion (
talk)
08:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I added a couple new sentences in the paragraph about the Zietsch et al., 2008 paper to include some qualifications about the results of the study from the discussion section of that paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.99.196.55 ( talk) 01:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
In the section: Biological differences in gay men and lesbians Physiological
The entry: It has been discovered that the anuses of homosexual men tend to be 68% larger in circumference than those of heterosexual men.
Has no supporting reference 116.232.8.113 ( talk) 14:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
In the section on "Exotic Becomes Erotic" the last paragraph seems out of place. It starts with "William Reiner, a psychiatrist and urologist with..." and then talks about gender orientation and a suggestion that sexual orientation is determined at birth. This doesn't sound like a part of the EBE theory, which explicitly maintains that sexual orientation is not determined at birth, but rather in childhood. I propose deleting this paragraph or incorporating it into another section. Lousyd ( talk) 01:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is it so hard for people to believe teenagers can identify themself as being Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual or Transgender and are not just confused about their sexuality? Nikkidimble ( talk) 05:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
For 2004 August deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Genetic basis for homosexuality
I removed the pathology as a cause section because it was based on a single non-medical primary source. I dug though the scientific literature, and I could not find much to back it up. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Not in general, but specifically how they're used in this edit. I never remove content without a good reason so here are my explanations:
The content gives undue weight. This criticism has nothing to do with the credentials of Bearman and Bruckner. There are no direct quotes elsewhere in the article, so any added we would expect to be representative of general scientific consensus. This is not the case; general consensus has not yet ruled out uterine hormone influence or evolutionary theories. As evidenced by the article itself the figures of 6.7% and 5.3% are in contest with a number of other studies; they are just one drop in the ocean, so to speak.
The content is out of place. At this point in the article we have not mentioned uterine hormones or the birth order effect. The former is not explained in depth and the latter is only given a passing mention in the article, so it out of place to be providing technical criticism without providing our readers the means to understand what is being criticized. Placing a statement renouncing the theories before they are ever mentioned is a clear sign of a non-objective POV.
Lastly, the figures themselves are wrong. I suspect You're referring to the paper's figures of 7.7% for male and 5.3% for female monozygotic twins, which then are incomplete without describing results from the other groups. Lastly calling this quote a "conclusion" is slightly misleading when it is an introductory statement, and does not necessarily provide the objective overview that a conclusion should.
Thanks for your time and concern. Theinactivist ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I reverted the lede to the following to accommodate Bearman and Bruckman's prestigious study:
The former phrasing sounds like a violation of NOR and ignores Bearman and Bruckman.
Somebody, perhaps inadvertently, reverted my edit without due discussion. Historyprofrd ( talk) 06:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The link in LeVay S (August 1991). "A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men" (PDF), which is source nr 31, doesn't link to the right page. Highollow ( talk) 18:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey, everyone. Refer to the Talk:Sexual orientation#Causes of sexual orientation discussion for why I reverted these edits that were made to the lead. I started the discussion at the Sexual orientation talk page to keep the discussion, which concerns two other articles, in one place. Flyer22 ( talk) 18:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Strongly agree with Pete.Hurd: The article Environment and sexual orientation should be merged with this one. As I made my last edit to the lede, I wasn't even aware of the other article. I still stand by my edit, but the overlap between the two articles causes a lot of redundancies. This is not a topic like global warming or cigarettes causing cancer, there is really no consensus between scientists, so the resulting article should truly attempt to be apolitical and simply outline the various theories. Having the major article on the origins of sexual orientation focus on biological factors, marginalizes the other factors.
Here's a suggestion: Use the APA quote as a thesis/outline for the entire new article:
What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation? There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
The APA doesn't give undue weight to biological factors, we shouldn't either. Ragazz ( talk) 21:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
In regards to the Physiological dot-point "A study of 50 gay men found 23% had counterclockwise hair whorl, as opposed to 8% in the general population." Sorry to be a numbers nazi, but how can you get 23% from 50 people. This number would be 11.5 people. Either they have it or they don't. Please fix the figure to either 22% or 24%. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.4.188.206 ( talk) 03:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Per my above suggestion above that "we drop any mention about what research generally suggests about [causes of] sexual orientation, since research on sexual orientation is inconclusive, like the major scientific organizations state, and that "[s]cientists generally favor biological models for the cause of sexual orientation, but they generally believe that sexual orientation is formed by a complex interplay of biological and social factors," and that we should instead "attribute the 'genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences' text to what scientists/researchers believe," I finally altered the lead to this. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
(Coming from WPMED per the above request). The first thing I notice is that a rather large portion of this article is based on
primary sources and mass-media reports, many of which are quite dated and would not meet
wp:RS, let alone
wp:MEDRS. This is conducive to accurately reflecting neither current scientific consensus nor ongoing scientific discussion. Fortunately, it is fairly simple (if a bit boring) to remedy by incremental steps. A sequential examination of each citation should include a check of its
PubMed data. If it is a review more than five years old, a check should be made for more recent reviews or textbooks. Unless it has been widely cited, a ten-year-old source should only be used in very special cases. Since removing such sources can be controversial, it is advisable to first mark them, such as with {{
bettersource}}, using the |inline=
and |date=
parameters. This allows other editors time to look for better replacements. While there is
wp:NODEADLINE, waiting three months or even a year before deletion is not unreasonable, except for the most egregious sources.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
15:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I added a sorely needed sentence to the lede in order to tie up the loose ends of the preceding paragraph. The previous language had been ambiguous and convoluted, and left unanswered the top question on every readers mind: "What is the current consensus among scientists about when sexual orientation is determined?"
Wikipedia is here as a transparent source of information, and should not obscure information. The fact is, science has NOT ruled out social and cultural influences, and this should be readily apparent to the layperson without having to read through the entire article.
NPOV: The APA is one of the most ardent supporters of gay rights and gay marriage, and I did not have to "dig" for this source. Any attempt to remove this information from the lede should be viewed as in bad faith, politically motivated, and essentially anti-knowledge. Ragazz ( talk) 19:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Some comment with constructive intention. There is an article about Sexual orientation, another about environment and sexual orientation, and this one. So I think it would be appropriate just to say that this article is about the scientific work done to establish the relationship between biology and sexual orientation.-- Auró ( talk) 21:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Need more eyes at Talk:Environment_and_sexual_orientation#History_of_Abuse.-- В и к и T 07:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I am unable to find any published support for this section - the link is broken.
"In September 2011, Binbin Wang et al. followed up on the SHH gene
inconsistent, and a publish-ahead-of-print article was published in the Journal of Andrology showing positive results in a study that found statistically significant differences in allele types between 361 identified homosexual subjects and 319 heterosexual control subjects.Wang (2011). "Association Analysis Between the Tag SNP for Sonic Hedgehog rs9333613 Polymorphism and Male Sexual Orientation". Journal of Andrology. {{
cite journal}}
: |format=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)"
Tobeprecise (
talk)
06:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The abstract of the Swedish study refered to in this article, states: " ... genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and 64–.66 for unique environmental factors."
That is, individual-specific environmental factors accounted for some two-thirds of the variance (in both men and women), while genetic factors explained less than 20% of the variance in women, and about one-third of the variance in men.
However, both the lead and other sections of this article consistently place "genetics" in the first position in the lists of possible factors. Shouldn't the possible factors be placed in the order consistent with the most recent and comprehensive research? Tobeprecise ( talk) 07:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect to the extensive work done by the prior editors regarding the lead, the result is a lead in sore need of copy-editing - it is written in a clumsy style, and does not completely accurately reflect the content of the article which follows. I am aware of a high level of interest in this article shown by two or three editors. However, reading the lead with fresh eyes, in my opinion, it is in need of a re-write, which I will propose. Tobeprecise ( talk) 20:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Latest news breaking studies are not always recommended. Studies themselves need to be subjected to tests as to reproducibility and intrepretation. It comes as no great surprise that even without political influence allowing the injection of bias into study methods and analysis -- survey and psychological studies are the most easily contaminated by unmeasured variables and also the most complex and difficult to analyze for definitive results. In fact under the strict scientific method many of these studies should be in the end be classified as producing no usable results, even where strict attempts were made to avoid bias and limit external factors. Scientists are not gods. Theoretically it should be acceptable for such studies to yield no usable result.
Unfortunately the politics of both society and research funding itself demand that not only are results initially advertised as usable but results in human personality and behavior must always be announced as producing SPECTACULAR results. In the highly charged atmosphere of activist politics and connected science only the showmanship of initial release counts. Being shown to be full of bull on later examination for reproducable or logical conclusion is irrelevant ancient news which seldom makes front page nor most funding committee reviews. 72.182.8.122 ( talk) 21:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that standard WP practice is to place the most important information first in a section, and less important information lower in a section. Right now, the "Twin Studies" section is in roughly chronological order, rather than in order of the comprehensiveness of the study. (Chronological order would make sense if this were a discussion of the history of these studies - which it is not.)
I suggest that the studies in this section be placed in an order more closely approximating the comprehensiveness of the study (i.e, the more comprehensive the higher), the amount of criticism that each has received (i.e., the more criticism the lower), etc. Comments please. Tobeprecise ( talk) 08:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect to the work done by the prior editors regarding this Twin Studies section, the result is a section in sore need of copy-editing - it is written in a clumsy style, full of WP:JARGON, and the issues raised earlier by LeadSongDog (above) do not appear to have been constructively solved. I am aware of a high level of interest in this article shown by two or three editors. However, reading this section with fresh eyes, in my opinion, it is in need of a substantial re-write, which I will propose. Tobeprecise ( talk) 21:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
My specialty is copy-editing -- taking content and editing it into a more user-friendly, understandable flow. That could mean moving things around, revising clumsy or jargon-laden writing, moving material that doesn't meet Wikipedia standards to footnotes or the Talk page, streamlining duplications, organizing topics in a more logical manner, etc. My goal is not to alter the basic content, but to present content in a manner that is more easily accessible to the average reader. Along those lines, my copy-editor eyes see this entire article as the type of good faith assemblage that is often found in Wikipedia - people add on a section, placing it where it makes sense to them, later editors make changes, add other sections or topics, and after five years, there's a mosaic of solid and less-solid writing, older and newer material, all, to be frank, just basically patched together a bit haphazardly. In the near future, I'm going to WP:BRD and do a substantial copy-editing job. I would ask that the edited article be looked at seriously and in good faith, and that there not be a wholesale reversion back to the existing status. To the extent that specific changes catch anybody's eye, please bring those discussions here before any wholesale reversions. Tobeprecise ( talk) 18:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
The twin studies section should either be broken into two separate sub sections: one for earlier self-selected tests and one for later comprehensive tests without self-selection issues, or a concise general summary paragraph of the studies in general should be at the top of the section -- this is probably the most preferable and encyclopedic. Right now it appears to be more of a "history" section than getting down to the brass tacks of what the science itself actually shows as of today, even worse since the sections appear as more or less cut and paste jobs from the abstracts instead of more prosaic language. 68.117.88.143 ( talk) 14:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know of any particular reason why this study by Francis (Emory 2008) does not appear to be referenced in this article? ( Family and Sexual Orientation: The Family-Demographic Correlates of Homosexuality in Men and Women) Is it referenced here and I'm just missing it? Tobeprecise ( talk) 21:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Just so interested editors have a sense of scale, these are among the changes that I will be proposing:
The proposed CE will address these issues, among others. Tobeprecise ( talk) 11:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Right. I'm assuming good faith, and trusting that these guidelines from WP:OWN will be respected:
The discussion about "tag team" ownership on this same page is interesting as well. Tobeprecise ( talk) 21:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for your observations, which are appreciated (I responded to Rivertorch on his Talk page). I'll let you know when the re-structured article is ready for your review. Tobeprecise ( talk) 19:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
In regards to the Physiological dot-point "A study of 50 gay men found 23% had counterclockwise hair whorl, as opposed to 8% in the general population." Sorry to be a numbers nazi, but how can you get 23% from 50 people. This number would be 11.5 people. Either they have it or they don't. Please fix the figure to either 22% or 24%. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.4.188.206 ( talk) 03:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
This article is a shame for Wikipedia. Mostly outdated, contradicted or inherently wrong/biased research is put together to make homosexual people some sort of different race illustrating stereotypes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.208.163.56 ( talk) 21:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I came to this article to answer the question is there a gay gene. As I'm sure many people do. The current lede makes the answer much more ambiguous than it should be. I think that although there continues to be research on the subject, an important conclusion as concerns identical twin studies needs to be included very clearly in the lede. The lede needs to be reworked. What I did was better than what exists now. So I am going to revert. Glennconti ( talk) 18:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
There should be something in here about the pathogenic hypothesis. 75.166.184.15 ( talk) 05:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
please add the 2014 plublished paper: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9385646&fileId=S0033291714002451 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.40.150.178 ( talk) 12:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Rafe87 ( talk · contribs), regarding this, this, this, this and this, which all looks to be pushing a "gay people are better" angle, we should be going by WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. Read that guideline carefully. From what I've seen, you never follow it. We should not be relying so heavily on WP:Primary sources, and especially not to make sweeping claims about the intelligence level of heterosexual or gay people. Also, inductivist.blogspot.com is not a WP:Reliable source, let alone a WP:MEDRS-compliant source. I realize that research on sexual orientation isn't as active as various other scientific fields (I've noted that above on this talk page), and therefore the relaxed approached noted at WP:MEDDATE comes into play at this article, but that doesn't mean we should accept any and every study on sexual orientation. KateWishing and CFCF, any opinions on this? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 15:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
"gay people are better" angle
That's an absurd accusation, seeing that it was me who inserted the paragraph about gay men's disadvantage on spatial intelligence tests. Prior to my edits, all differences being mentioned made reference to gay people's advantages only. I'm not going to argue about the distinction between primary and secondary sources, which I don't understand, but all sources included by me on this entry are exactly like the ones that inserted by other editors — peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals. If the sources being used on this entry were appropriate before my edits, then they still are. The Inductivist source, by the way, was on this entry there before any of my edits. I have nothing to do with it. It's funny how you only started to have a problem with it after you (mistakenly) associated it with me.
If you have an objection to any of my edits, articulate them more with more precision, without making reference to guidelines whose relevance to this discussion. How are my sources inappropriate for this entry? Are they being misrepresented? Etc. Start from there. Don't just say you dislike what is being told by those studies — your feelings are irrelevant, those studies are valid regardless of what emotions they arouse from you. Also, refrain from bringing to this debate any resentments you may have nurtured in discussions on other entries, User:Flyer22 Reborn. Much obliged. 177.40.231.23 ( talk) 03:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC) (Rafe87)
In the studies you and your buddy keep removing. In any case, I never claimed in my edits that the finding was universal - only that some studies had found it. In relation to verbal intelligence measures, I did nothing but add references to the text, which was already there before me. You're removing my edits because I keep inserting more sources. Can you understand how deranged you look? Talk about poor editing! My most substantive edits - including not only sources but also text - was on the spatial intelligence difference, which doesn't preclude the genius here from accusing me of pushing a narrative of gay superiority. Un-fucking-believable. And hostile.your proof for that is where?
Gareth Griffith-Jones, why did you make this revert of an IP? See above, and this report, for why the IP is justified. All of this is why I reverted you. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 20:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Pinging KrakatoaKatie (the administrator who blocked Rafe87 after CFCF reported him for the aforementioned edit warring) that Rafe87 is up to it again; there is a bit of new content in that, but it is mostly the same disputed content. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 22:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Rafe87 reverted yet again, and I reverted him yet again. He also took the matter to this, this and this WikiProject. It should also have been taken to WP:Med while he was at it, but the only other medical editor (other than KateWishing and CFCF) who has the patience to deal with sourcing for sexual orientation issues is Jytdog. I told Rafe87 that if he keeps adding this material to the article, my next step is WP:ANI, since this content is disputed, he was blocked for edit warring over it, and has vowed above and in the article's edit history to add it no matter what. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 20:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The same problem I've seen on another article: quoting people who are not involved directly with research on sexual orientation, but make very broad and bold statements without providing any reference for their claims. I have deleted the same quote by Michael King, who is a professor of psychiatry specialised in the area of primary care, on the topic of sexual orientation. For the same reason I will proceed to delete the quote, because someone who is not an authority in the field should not be quoted making over-arching statements on the state of knowledge in this area of research. What is more, it's important to quote people who are not involved in any politics on the issue of sexual orientation. Now, professor King may be an excellent psychiatrist and a great person, but he did not publish anything that is quoted in the literature on sexual orientation and apparently he is very actively involved in taking political stances using his professional status to defend sexual minority rights. Given this context, please let's try to keep these articles as NPOV as possible and only quote people involved in sexual politics only if they have produced some scientific material relevant for the subject and of real significance. Otherwise, a little bit of research can give any reader the impression that we are editing this article to influence others' opinions using the words of advocates. I think we can do better than that. Thanks. PS - I will now proceed to make the changes I announced earlier on, on the brain-scanning study inacuracy. Aliasflavius ( talk) 20:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
In the "Physiological" section of differences between orientations, there is a statement which is not in line with the referenced study.
“ | Three regions of the brain (medial prefrontal cortex, left hippocampus, and right amygdala) are more active in gay men than non-gay men when exposed to sexually arousing material. | ” |
If you read the study from footnote 56 (the Safron et al. (2007) study), the conclusion is that the group difference was observed only for the amygdala region. What is more, one neuroscientist commented on this study that the (amygdala) difference between groups was so small that perhaps the main finding of this study is that "hetero" and "homo" male brains react similarly to their preferred stimuli. The authors of the study cautioned any interpretation of this study to take into account that the study cannot say if the differences were the result of different levels of arousal and similar processing or similar levels of arousal but different processing. In lay terms, scientists cannot say if people of different orientations use the same brain regions similarly for different sexes but they are more or less aroused by those sexes or because they use the same brain regions in different ways, which leads to arousal in the same regions but for different sexes. Where did the author of this statement get this conclusion from? If no reason, based on the study, is offered I will make the necessary correction soon. Aliasflavius ( talk) 20:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
“ | For the most part, homosexual and heterosexual men showed very similar patterns of activation (albeit to different erotic stimuli). One possible exception was the amygdala, in which homosexual men showed greater activational differences between preferred and nonpreferred erotic stimuli compared with heterosexual men. However, this difference was not hypothesized a priori, was not large, and was the only group difference found out of many tested. Thus, this finding needs replication."(Reference: Debra A. Hope (editor), What is Sexual Orientation and Do Women Have One? (presentation by J.M. Bailey), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Volume 54 p. 47, Springer Science, 2009.) | ” |
The sources you gave for "Gay men have longer penises" need to be seriously reconsidered, as there is no reputable scientific evidence to verify the validity of your claims. Logically, it would be the exact opposite.
Furthermore, "Gay men report..." is not valid, because of course they are going to say they have larger penises. What guy wouldn't?
Where it says "Gay men report..." I don't think that the scientists just asked some gay people "Do you have a larger penis than the average straight man?" and all the test people in the survey said "yes". They probably asked some straight men and some gay men "How large is your penis". Now, assuming each group on average exaggerates equally (which I admit is up for debate, though there is no a priori reason to expect one group to lie more than the other), then the results are reliable. More formally, if the reported average length of a gay man's penis is greater than the reported length of a straight man's, and both figures are liable to the same systematic error, it is likely that the errors will roughly cancel and that the reported difference in size will be quite accurate.
We need to play a game of Smear-the-Queer wikipedia style.
In the pheromones section it refers to the results of Lesbian women as "somewhat confused", but I can not find it in the source. Can somebody please elaborate? Thoughtbox ( talk) 18:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC) [1] I too could not find any source to fit such claim yet I did find an article that states just the opposite. Nikkidimble ( talk) 06:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Teenage girls and young women who identify as Lesbian or bisexual are just "going through a phase" and that most of those women will eventually settle down as heterosexual.
The scholarly research on this topic does not provide strong evidence in support of this assumption. On the contrary, the most careful, longitudinal studies - in which researchers keep track of the same women for many years - suggests just the opposite. For example, Professor Lisa Diamond followed a cohort of women for 10 years: she found that over those ten years, these women were more likely to ADOPT the bisexual label than they were to RELINQUISH that label
Please keep Lesbian and Bisexual seperate as they are two seperate identities. I think it's more appropriate to include "some women" rather than all women who are lesbian or bisexual as many Lesbians do not ever become bisexual or adopt a bisexual label. Thanks. -seeker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.6.20 ( talk) 19:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I removed the bolded statements "sexual orientation" and "biology." The emphasis does not appear in the original, and the quote's relevance to these topics is obvious from it's inclusion in the article "Biology and sexual orientation." I consider this a minor edit, but the emphasis could return, with a notation "emphasis added." Any thoughts or preferances? Biccat ( talk) 19:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Estimates of heritability of homosexuality | ||
---|---|---|
Study | Male | Female |
Hershberger, 1997 | 0% | 48% |
Bailey et al., 2000 | 30% | |
Kendler et al., 2000 | 28–65% | |
Kirk et al., 2000 | 30% | 50–60% |
Bearman et al., 2002 | 7.7% | 5.3% |
I have removed the heretability table until it can be corrected. Bearman et al did not estimate the heretabilities of same sex attraction to be 7.7% and 5.5% in males and females respectively. Those numbers refer to the concordance of homosexual attraction in MZ twins when at least one feels same sex attraction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domminico ( talk • contribs) 23:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Scans see 'gay brain differences' 01:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The article reads, 'Biology and sexual orientation is the research within the field of biology with regard to investigating the nature of sexual orientation in humans and its causes.' Sorry to whoever wrote this, but it sounds awful. Just to start with, the beginning, 'Biology and sexual orientation is the research within the field of biology...' does not make sense. This needs to be rewritten so that it makes sense. Skoojal ( talk) 10:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Well it's a moot point now, thanks to a fly-by edit by Joshuajohanson ( talk · contribs) presumably in response to this [1]. MickMacNee ( talk) 21:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The article reads, 'In the topic of biology and sexual orientation, ongoing scientific research is examining the possibility of there existing a specific biological contribution to the ultimate development of a specific sexual orientation in human beings.' Sorry, but that still sounds awful. Just to begin with, that sentence should not start with the words, 'In the topic of biology and sexual orientation.' The rest is pretty bad too (please don't use the word 'specific' twice in one sentence), and perhaps POVish. Skoojal ( talk) 04:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Why not, I say. I can't see a good reason for keeping them separate. Much (maybe most) research on sexual orientation is biological now anyway. If there is no "Non-Biological Influences on Sexual Orientation" article, I can't see any reason why there should be a "Biology and Sexual Orientation" article. Skoojal ( talk) 07:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Our article says of Långström et al study "They found that homosexuality was largely due to environmental factors, not genetics." and yet the linked to article Society's attitudes have little impact on choice of sexual partner with blurbs by Långström says the exact opposite. "The results show, that familial and public attitudes might be less important for our sexual behaviour than previously suggested", says Associate Professor Niklas Långström, one of the involved researchers. "Instead, genetic factors and the individual's unique biological and social environments play the biggest role." The study reports the exact opposite of what this article says it does. The linked-to article reports "Overall, the environment shared by twins (including familial and societal attitudes) explained 0-17% of the choice of sexual partner, genetic factors 18-39% and the unique environment 61-66%. The individual's unique environment includes, for example, circumstances during pregnancy and childbirth, physical and psychological trauma (e.g., accidents, violence, and disease), peer groups, and sexual experiences." this seems totally at odds with how it is portrayed here. Pete.Hurd ( talk) 21:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Pete, Genetic factors came in at 18% to 39%, environmental factors came in at a whoppping 61% to 66%. Social factors came in a mere 0% to 17%. BTW, I just can't get the reference hooked up to save my life. I think it's because it's in some way hidden. Hopefully whoever runs that can hook it up properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.131.47 ( talk) 21:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I should add that Michael Bailey recently stated that another massive twin study was due out soon. I think he implied it would be the best yet. Uggh... didn't sign in for last comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duper-Super-1000 ( talk • contribs) 21:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Pete if you read the blurb on the study and the press releases related to this study "environment" does not mean socialization. They believe it is largely due to biological environment, not social. According to this study the biological environment is significantly more impactful than genetics. 18% to 39% for genes is much smaller than 61% to 66% for environment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duper-Super-1000 ( talk • contribs) 21:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Pete I quoted the exact release from the study. Genes came in way lower than environment. 18 to 39 for genes is way lower than 61 to 66 for environment. I'm not sure what you are getting at.
Pete, the release which I included in quotes stated several things that environment could potentially include. Many, if not most of these factors were biological. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duper-Super-1000 ( talk • contribs) 22:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Pete, you are correct. The text in quotes came directly from their study and it explained what the researchers meant by environment. Most of what they listed was biological. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.131.47 ( talk) 22:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
From the article:
Is it original research? Darimoma ( talk) 00:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
(emphasis in original) Now, I could quibble with some of the details there, but I think that accurately describes the view of mainstream scientists on the matter (and clearly shows that the point in question is far from OR). Note also, I read about a dozen or so intro psych texts this summer (all candidates to be our new intro psych course textbook) and none of them had anything really different to say from the quote above (and when I was teaching a more advance Behavioural Genetics course, the textbook said about the same thing as well. Pete.Hurd ( talk) 19:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)"However, scientific research has failed to identify any aspect of parenting that has a significant impact on sexual orientation (Bell, Weinberg, & Hammersmith, 1981), and indeed, children raised by homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are equally likely to become heterosexual adults (Patterson, 1995). There is also little support for the idea that a person's early sexual encounters have a lasting impact on his or her sexual oreintation (Bohan, 1996). On the other hand, there is considerable evidence to suggest that genetics plays a role in determining sexual orientation. Gay men and bisexuals tend to have a larger proportion of gay and lesbian siblings than do heterosexuals (Bailey et al., 1999). Furthermore, the idential twin of a gay man (with whom he shares 100% of his genes) has a 50% chance of being homosexual, whereas the fraternal twin or non twin brother of a gay man (with whom he shares 50% of his genes) has only a 15% chance (Bailey & Pillard, 1991; Gladue, 1994). A similar pattern has emerged in studies of women (Bailey et al., 1993). In addition, some evidence suggests that the fetal environment may play a role in determining sexual orientation and that high levels of androgens predispose the fetus -whether male or female- later to develop a sexual preference for women (Ellis & Ames, 1987; Mayer-Bahlberg et al., 1995). Of course, biology cannot be the sole determinant of a person's sexual orientation because, as these figures indicate, homosexual men and women often have twins who are genetically identical, who shared their fetal environment, and who are heterosexual nonetheless."
It's published. New texts for the fall term typically have the next years date, I donno why... must be the same marketing think as new cars Pete.Hurd ( talk) 15:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Is this a part of sociobiology? I don't see any cross-references between the two articles, but the research seems similar (investigating to what extent social behavior is determined by biology). -- Delirium ( talk) 07:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I think this may be a useful resource, but I'm not quite sure about how to go about incorporating the information. [5]
Particularly of note: Camperio Ciani emphasises that, rather than being a "gay gene", this unidentified genetic factor is likely to promote sexual attraction to men in both men and women. This would influence a woman's attitude rather than actually increasing her fertility, making her likely to have more children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.156.9 ( talk) 05:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
A new study by Andrew Francis from Emory University found no Fraternal Birth Order Effect. His sample was large, over 10,000 participants. I personally believe in a biological explanation but it looks like this one might not be it. Maybe someone would like to tackle this one. [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duper-Super-1000 ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't take a quantum leap of cognition to accept that hormones created in the fetal body do in fact steer the growth of the rest of the organism. However, there is a big difference between hormones which are produced within the placenta, and hormones which are outside of it and presumably blocked by it. The tone of this article seems to have difficulty with the proposition that fetal hormone need not equal maternal hormone. If it came from the fetus, then obviously it's a matter of fetal DNA producing the hormone, not the mother's. Tcaudilllg ( talk) 11:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm taking out the following part of the section, because the sources do not provide the stated conclusions:
"Another form of research was done by Dr. Savic. Dr. Savic uses PET scans to see the brain activity while letting people smell different types of pheromones. Savic used two compounds that resemble the male and female sex hormones. The first is 4,16-androstadien-3-one (AND) which is a derivative of testosterone produced in human axillary secretions in higher concentrations in men than in women. The second compound is oestra-1,3,5(10),16-tetraen-3-ol (EST) which is a substance resembling naturally occurring oestrogenes [2]. These are the pheromones that make men and women attracted to each other. When a man smells a woman's pheromone, EST, there is a degree of brain activity. The same happens to women for the pheromone AND. Savic found that gays had the similar brain activity as women when given the whiff of AND, and vice versa for lesbians [3]. Savic's findings imply that sexual orientation is determined prior to exposure to life’s environmental influences. Also, unlike some of the early researchers, Savic's research is less likely to cater to a gay political agenda or bias, as her field was originally epilepsy research. She inadvertently stumbled onto the pheromone sex differences while studying how smells might trigger temporal lobe epilepsy [4]."
What kind of peer-reviewed journal can salon.com be ? The paper simply finds a difference between brain reactions of homo- and heterosexual humans. There is no way to tell if this is hereditary or learnt later in life, and the original research paper does not state a single word concering this problem. Perhaps someone can reword this into a single sentence about the brain differences, but I personally do not see what the article gains from this, as the relevance is not clear (brain differences are already stated in several other sections). —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMaster17 ( talk • contribs) 13:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
In the old bad days – I think it was during the period 1870 - 1914 – there where claims of gays being more physically feminine and lesbians being more masculine. Yet the list of physiological differences for the very most part deals with differences in the brain. Only two paragraphs deals with differences visible on the outside. One describes a trait that is hard to notice (relative length of the fingers) and the other is the very opposite of the old claims (penis size). Does this mean that the old claims have been disproven? Please note that the homo- and bisexuals I have encountered have usually looked typically male and female. I have only met one homosexual and one bisexual that looked more androgynous. In fact, the most androgynous person I can come up with is a former neighbour who showed no indication of being anything but heterosexual. Once she was nearly hanged up by a gay who mistook her for a man!
2009-06-10 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
I've read that some researchers had made ties between prenatal hormones and contraception, suggesting that things like the birth control pill could have an impact on male sexual orientation. ADM ( talk) 02:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know of any study proving the essential concept in the evolution section (that homosexuality = less reproduction)? Before the 20th century, it was my understanding that exclusive homosexuality was very rare, and most homosexuals (if they existed) would still marry and reproduce . I would guess that nowadays gay people have fewer kids, but is this true over an evolutionary timescale? I think the section would be greatly improved if the initial claim is referenced, so at least all the arguments against are not tilting at windmills. Yob Mod 12:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
It would be interesting if the article would be able to go beyond classical heterosexual/homosexual divisions and try to find out whether certain clinical cases of sexual behavior are biologically determined. For instance, there is a debate among psychiatrists on whether child sexual abuse, rape and incest are biologically determined. If so, it would mean that certain ethnic groups would be more likely to have child abusers in their ranks. There were concerns about Ireland during the priest abuse crisis because so many pedophile priests were ethnically Irish. In that case, one could imagine the scientific use of eugenics in order to ethnically cleanse such ethnic groups from potential genetically pre-conditioned pedophiles. ADM ( talk) 05:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
This section is ONLY about a 1991 survey and yet it appears to be presented as a conclusion of the studies listed above -- which were pretty much all later than 1991.
Kinda hosed up. -- Blue Tie ( talk) 20:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
This isn't a terribly useful remark of mine, I know, but I just had to tell you guys that this quote is the funniest thing I ever read on wikipedia: "Gay men report, on an average, slightly longer and thicker penises than non-gay men"
I don't mean to argue with it's validity, the sources are probably smarter than me, but if it were true, it would be immensely funnier even. :) 85.145.116.131 ( talk) 00:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
No this isn't a troll topic. As many know in European Pole Cats males born to mostly females litters are often homosexual, showing disinterest in females and exhibiting full sexual behavior with males. I've heard it suggested, multiple times, that in such cases homosexuality in the males may serve an evolutionary advantage by decreasing the rate of inbreeding, have any studies been done to this effect? -- 67.58.84.222 ( talk) 17:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Explanation for this editation is fully compliant with Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Use up-to-date evidence Putting it back is obviously in contradiction with Wikipedia rules. -- Destinero ( talk) 21:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I find essential the following study and it's conclusion to be mentioned in the article: "The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation." http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Doi=262525 -- Destinero ( talk) 10:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
this section needs to reflect that while there are some studies that show a correlation, there are other studies that show there are not, some of which are even listed in that section. the way it is phrased currently is biased. i don't want to change it because i think someone will undo it, how can we fix it so it is neutral? Aisha9152 ( talk) 20:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a cited claim on this page that a study by sanders et al. in 1998 replicated the Xq28 genetic link to homosexuality, however, the only paper by sanders in 1998 about this topic I've found information on says that they DID NOT replicate the results. Can someone who has access to this book "Born Gay" please verify that it definitely says they replicated the results? The original paper seems to be unavailable, however, the one that says they did not replicate the results includes Sanders as an author, so it may be worth just deleting that statement altogether because it's kinda clearly untrue. Here's the paper that says it: http://www.springerlink.com/content/m232wur016t3nu37/ 149.157.1.154 ( talk) 13:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I have found an interesting science article that may be of great use to this article. It is about the genetics and evolution of homosexuality and the testable predictions made from mathematical models. Someone of expertise may want to take a look and do a bit of research. This could be a great contribution to the article!
Andrew Colvin ( talk) 03:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
While the title of this entry refers to "sexual orientation" it is in fact focused almost entirely upon hypothetical causes of homosexuality. Little or no space is devoted to summarizing research into the causes of heterosexuality or bisexuality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.171.42 ( talk) 19:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The article Homosexuality is undergoing revision. The revised version is available in the sandbox and the project documentation and coordination is taking place in the Sandbox's talk page.
I would appreciate if people joined in. I'm currently looking towards forming a team for the revision and future maintenance of this article.
Thank you,
Pdorion (
talk)
08:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I added a couple new sentences in the paragraph about the Zietsch et al., 2008 paper to include some qualifications about the results of the study from the discussion section of that paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.99.196.55 ( talk) 01:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
In the section: Biological differences in gay men and lesbians Physiological
The entry: It has been discovered that the anuses of homosexual men tend to be 68% larger in circumference than those of heterosexual men.
Has no supporting reference 116.232.8.113 ( talk) 14:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
In the section on "Exotic Becomes Erotic" the last paragraph seems out of place. It starts with "William Reiner, a psychiatrist and urologist with..." and then talks about gender orientation and a suggestion that sexual orientation is determined at birth. This doesn't sound like a part of the EBE theory, which explicitly maintains that sexual orientation is not determined at birth, but rather in childhood. I propose deleting this paragraph or incorporating it into another section. Lousyd ( talk) 01:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is it so hard for people to believe teenagers can identify themself as being Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual or Transgender and are not just confused about their sexuality? Nikkidimble ( talk) 05:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
For 2004 August deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Genetic basis for homosexuality
I removed the pathology as a cause section because it was based on a single non-medical primary source. I dug though the scientific literature, and I could not find much to back it up. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Not in general, but specifically how they're used in this edit. I never remove content without a good reason so here are my explanations:
The content gives undue weight. This criticism has nothing to do with the credentials of Bearman and Bruckner. There are no direct quotes elsewhere in the article, so any added we would expect to be representative of general scientific consensus. This is not the case; general consensus has not yet ruled out uterine hormone influence or evolutionary theories. As evidenced by the article itself the figures of 6.7% and 5.3% are in contest with a number of other studies; they are just one drop in the ocean, so to speak.
The content is out of place. At this point in the article we have not mentioned uterine hormones or the birth order effect. The former is not explained in depth and the latter is only given a passing mention in the article, so it out of place to be providing technical criticism without providing our readers the means to understand what is being criticized. Placing a statement renouncing the theories before they are ever mentioned is a clear sign of a non-objective POV.
Lastly, the figures themselves are wrong. I suspect You're referring to the paper's figures of 7.7% for male and 5.3% for female monozygotic twins, which then are incomplete without describing results from the other groups. Lastly calling this quote a "conclusion" is slightly misleading when it is an introductory statement, and does not necessarily provide the objective overview that a conclusion should.
Thanks for your time and concern. Theinactivist ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I reverted the lede to the following to accommodate Bearman and Bruckman's prestigious study:
The former phrasing sounds like a violation of NOR and ignores Bearman and Bruckman.
Somebody, perhaps inadvertently, reverted my edit without due discussion. Historyprofrd ( talk) 06:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The link in LeVay S (August 1991). "A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men" (PDF), which is source nr 31, doesn't link to the right page. Highollow ( talk) 18:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey, everyone. Refer to the Talk:Sexual orientation#Causes of sexual orientation discussion for why I reverted these edits that were made to the lead. I started the discussion at the Sexual orientation talk page to keep the discussion, which concerns two other articles, in one place. Flyer22 ( talk) 18:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Strongly agree with Pete.Hurd: The article Environment and sexual orientation should be merged with this one. As I made my last edit to the lede, I wasn't even aware of the other article. I still stand by my edit, but the overlap between the two articles causes a lot of redundancies. This is not a topic like global warming or cigarettes causing cancer, there is really no consensus between scientists, so the resulting article should truly attempt to be apolitical and simply outline the various theories. Having the major article on the origins of sexual orientation focus on biological factors, marginalizes the other factors.
Here's a suggestion: Use the APA quote as a thesis/outline for the entire new article:
What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation? There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
The APA doesn't give undue weight to biological factors, we shouldn't either. Ragazz ( talk) 21:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
In regards to the Physiological dot-point "A study of 50 gay men found 23% had counterclockwise hair whorl, as opposed to 8% in the general population." Sorry to be a numbers nazi, but how can you get 23% from 50 people. This number would be 11.5 people. Either they have it or they don't. Please fix the figure to either 22% or 24%. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.4.188.206 ( talk) 03:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Per my above suggestion above that "we drop any mention about what research generally suggests about [causes of] sexual orientation, since research on sexual orientation is inconclusive, like the major scientific organizations state, and that "[s]cientists generally favor biological models for the cause of sexual orientation, but they generally believe that sexual orientation is formed by a complex interplay of biological and social factors," and that we should instead "attribute the 'genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences' text to what scientists/researchers believe," I finally altered the lead to this. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
(Coming from WPMED per the above request). The first thing I notice is that a rather large portion of this article is based on
primary sources and mass-media reports, many of which are quite dated and would not meet
wp:RS, let alone
wp:MEDRS. This is conducive to accurately reflecting neither current scientific consensus nor ongoing scientific discussion. Fortunately, it is fairly simple (if a bit boring) to remedy by incremental steps. A sequential examination of each citation should include a check of its
PubMed data. If it is a review more than five years old, a check should be made for more recent reviews or textbooks. Unless it has been widely cited, a ten-year-old source should only be used in very special cases. Since removing such sources can be controversial, it is advisable to first mark them, such as with {{
bettersource}}, using the |inline=
and |date=
parameters. This allows other editors time to look for better replacements. While there is
wp:NODEADLINE, waiting three months or even a year before deletion is not unreasonable, except for the most egregious sources.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
15:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I added a sorely needed sentence to the lede in order to tie up the loose ends of the preceding paragraph. The previous language had been ambiguous and convoluted, and left unanswered the top question on every readers mind: "What is the current consensus among scientists about when sexual orientation is determined?"
Wikipedia is here as a transparent source of information, and should not obscure information. The fact is, science has NOT ruled out social and cultural influences, and this should be readily apparent to the layperson without having to read through the entire article.
NPOV: The APA is one of the most ardent supporters of gay rights and gay marriage, and I did not have to "dig" for this source. Any attempt to remove this information from the lede should be viewed as in bad faith, politically motivated, and essentially anti-knowledge. Ragazz ( talk) 19:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Some comment with constructive intention. There is an article about Sexual orientation, another about environment and sexual orientation, and this one. So I think it would be appropriate just to say that this article is about the scientific work done to establish the relationship between biology and sexual orientation.-- Auró ( talk) 21:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Need more eyes at Talk:Environment_and_sexual_orientation#History_of_Abuse.-- В и к и T 07:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I am unable to find any published support for this section - the link is broken.
"In September 2011, Binbin Wang et al. followed up on the SHH gene
inconsistent, and a publish-ahead-of-print article was published in the Journal of Andrology showing positive results in a study that found statistically significant differences in allele types between 361 identified homosexual subjects and 319 heterosexual control subjects.Wang (2011). "Association Analysis Between the Tag SNP for Sonic Hedgehog rs9333613 Polymorphism and Male Sexual Orientation". Journal of Andrology. {{
cite journal}}
: |format=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)"
Tobeprecise (
talk)
06:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The abstract of the Swedish study refered to in this article, states: " ... genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and 64–.66 for unique environmental factors."
That is, individual-specific environmental factors accounted for some two-thirds of the variance (in both men and women), while genetic factors explained less than 20% of the variance in women, and about one-third of the variance in men.
However, both the lead and other sections of this article consistently place "genetics" in the first position in the lists of possible factors. Shouldn't the possible factors be placed in the order consistent with the most recent and comprehensive research? Tobeprecise ( talk) 07:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect to the extensive work done by the prior editors regarding the lead, the result is a lead in sore need of copy-editing - it is written in a clumsy style, and does not completely accurately reflect the content of the article which follows. I am aware of a high level of interest in this article shown by two or three editors. However, reading the lead with fresh eyes, in my opinion, it is in need of a re-write, which I will propose. Tobeprecise ( talk) 20:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Latest news breaking studies are not always recommended. Studies themselves need to be subjected to tests as to reproducibility and intrepretation. It comes as no great surprise that even without political influence allowing the injection of bias into study methods and analysis -- survey and psychological studies are the most easily contaminated by unmeasured variables and also the most complex and difficult to analyze for definitive results. In fact under the strict scientific method many of these studies should be in the end be classified as producing no usable results, even where strict attempts were made to avoid bias and limit external factors. Scientists are not gods. Theoretically it should be acceptable for such studies to yield no usable result.
Unfortunately the politics of both society and research funding itself demand that not only are results initially advertised as usable but results in human personality and behavior must always be announced as producing SPECTACULAR results. In the highly charged atmosphere of activist politics and connected science only the showmanship of initial release counts. Being shown to be full of bull on later examination for reproducable or logical conclusion is irrelevant ancient news which seldom makes front page nor most funding committee reviews. 72.182.8.122 ( talk) 21:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that standard WP practice is to place the most important information first in a section, and less important information lower in a section. Right now, the "Twin Studies" section is in roughly chronological order, rather than in order of the comprehensiveness of the study. (Chronological order would make sense if this were a discussion of the history of these studies - which it is not.)
I suggest that the studies in this section be placed in an order more closely approximating the comprehensiveness of the study (i.e, the more comprehensive the higher), the amount of criticism that each has received (i.e., the more criticism the lower), etc. Comments please. Tobeprecise ( talk) 08:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect to the work done by the prior editors regarding this Twin Studies section, the result is a section in sore need of copy-editing - it is written in a clumsy style, full of WP:JARGON, and the issues raised earlier by LeadSongDog (above) do not appear to have been constructively solved. I am aware of a high level of interest in this article shown by two or three editors. However, reading this section with fresh eyes, in my opinion, it is in need of a substantial re-write, which I will propose. Tobeprecise ( talk) 21:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
My specialty is copy-editing -- taking content and editing it into a more user-friendly, understandable flow. That could mean moving things around, revising clumsy or jargon-laden writing, moving material that doesn't meet Wikipedia standards to footnotes or the Talk page, streamlining duplications, organizing topics in a more logical manner, etc. My goal is not to alter the basic content, but to present content in a manner that is more easily accessible to the average reader. Along those lines, my copy-editor eyes see this entire article as the type of good faith assemblage that is often found in Wikipedia - people add on a section, placing it where it makes sense to them, later editors make changes, add other sections or topics, and after five years, there's a mosaic of solid and less-solid writing, older and newer material, all, to be frank, just basically patched together a bit haphazardly. In the near future, I'm going to WP:BRD and do a substantial copy-editing job. I would ask that the edited article be looked at seriously and in good faith, and that there not be a wholesale reversion back to the existing status. To the extent that specific changes catch anybody's eye, please bring those discussions here before any wholesale reversions. Tobeprecise ( talk) 18:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
The twin studies section should either be broken into two separate sub sections: one for earlier self-selected tests and one for later comprehensive tests without self-selection issues, or a concise general summary paragraph of the studies in general should be at the top of the section -- this is probably the most preferable and encyclopedic. Right now it appears to be more of a "history" section than getting down to the brass tacks of what the science itself actually shows as of today, even worse since the sections appear as more or less cut and paste jobs from the abstracts instead of more prosaic language. 68.117.88.143 ( talk) 14:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know of any particular reason why this study by Francis (Emory 2008) does not appear to be referenced in this article? ( Family and Sexual Orientation: The Family-Demographic Correlates of Homosexuality in Men and Women) Is it referenced here and I'm just missing it? Tobeprecise ( talk) 21:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Just so interested editors have a sense of scale, these are among the changes that I will be proposing:
The proposed CE will address these issues, among others. Tobeprecise ( talk) 11:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Right. I'm assuming good faith, and trusting that these guidelines from WP:OWN will be respected:
The discussion about "tag team" ownership on this same page is interesting as well. Tobeprecise ( talk) 21:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for your observations, which are appreciated (I responded to Rivertorch on his Talk page). I'll let you know when the re-structured article is ready for your review. Tobeprecise ( talk) 19:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
In regards to the Physiological dot-point "A study of 50 gay men found 23% had counterclockwise hair whorl, as opposed to 8% in the general population." Sorry to be a numbers nazi, but how can you get 23% from 50 people. This number would be 11.5 people. Either they have it or they don't. Please fix the figure to either 22% or 24%. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.4.188.206 ( talk) 03:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
This article is a shame for Wikipedia. Mostly outdated, contradicted or inherently wrong/biased research is put together to make homosexual people some sort of different race illustrating stereotypes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.208.163.56 ( talk) 21:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I came to this article to answer the question is there a gay gene. As I'm sure many people do. The current lede makes the answer much more ambiguous than it should be. I think that although there continues to be research on the subject, an important conclusion as concerns identical twin studies needs to be included very clearly in the lede. The lede needs to be reworked. What I did was better than what exists now. So I am going to revert. Glennconti ( talk) 18:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
There should be something in here about the pathogenic hypothesis. 75.166.184.15 ( talk) 05:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
please add the 2014 plublished paper: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9385646&fileId=S0033291714002451 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.40.150.178 ( talk) 12:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Rafe87 ( talk · contribs), regarding this, this, this, this and this, which all looks to be pushing a "gay people are better" angle, we should be going by WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. Read that guideline carefully. From what I've seen, you never follow it. We should not be relying so heavily on WP:Primary sources, and especially not to make sweeping claims about the intelligence level of heterosexual or gay people. Also, inductivist.blogspot.com is not a WP:Reliable source, let alone a WP:MEDRS-compliant source. I realize that research on sexual orientation isn't as active as various other scientific fields (I've noted that above on this talk page), and therefore the relaxed approached noted at WP:MEDDATE comes into play at this article, but that doesn't mean we should accept any and every study on sexual orientation. KateWishing and CFCF, any opinions on this? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 15:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
"gay people are better" angle
That's an absurd accusation, seeing that it was me who inserted the paragraph about gay men's disadvantage on spatial intelligence tests. Prior to my edits, all differences being mentioned made reference to gay people's advantages only. I'm not going to argue about the distinction between primary and secondary sources, which I don't understand, but all sources included by me on this entry are exactly like the ones that inserted by other editors — peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals. If the sources being used on this entry were appropriate before my edits, then they still are. The Inductivist source, by the way, was on this entry there before any of my edits. I have nothing to do with it. It's funny how you only started to have a problem with it after you (mistakenly) associated it with me.
If you have an objection to any of my edits, articulate them more with more precision, without making reference to guidelines whose relevance to this discussion. How are my sources inappropriate for this entry? Are they being misrepresented? Etc. Start from there. Don't just say you dislike what is being told by those studies — your feelings are irrelevant, those studies are valid regardless of what emotions they arouse from you. Also, refrain from bringing to this debate any resentments you may have nurtured in discussions on other entries, User:Flyer22 Reborn. Much obliged. 177.40.231.23 ( talk) 03:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC) (Rafe87)
In the studies you and your buddy keep removing. In any case, I never claimed in my edits that the finding was universal - only that some studies had found it. In relation to verbal intelligence measures, I did nothing but add references to the text, which was already there before me. You're removing my edits because I keep inserting more sources. Can you understand how deranged you look? Talk about poor editing! My most substantive edits - including not only sources but also text - was on the spatial intelligence difference, which doesn't preclude the genius here from accusing me of pushing a narrative of gay superiority. Un-fucking-believable. And hostile.your proof for that is where?
Gareth Griffith-Jones, why did you make this revert of an IP? See above, and this report, for why the IP is justified. All of this is why I reverted you. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 20:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Pinging KrakatoaKatie (the administrator who blocked Rafe87 after CFCF reported him for the aforementioned edit warring) that Rafe87 is up to it again; there is a bit of new content in that, but it is mostly the same disputed content. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 22:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Rafe87 reverted yet again, and I reverted him yet again. He also took the matter to this, this and this WikiProject. It should also have been taken to WP:Med while he was at it, but the only other medical editor (other than KateWishing and CFCF) who has the patience to deal with sourcing for sexual orientation issues is Jytdog. I told Rafe87 that if he keeps adding this material to the article, my next step is WP:ANI, since this content is disputed, he was blocked for edit warring over it, and has vowed above and in the article's edit history to add it no matter what. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 20:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)