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 |
(Note: The citation given for the section's first paragraph is Bem's year 2000 paper on the exotic becomes erotic (EBE) theory. The citation also links to a PDF of Bem's seminal 1996 paper on the EBE theory).
The second paragraph of the section is a lengthy discussion of studies showing a higher rate of childhood gender non-conformity (CGN) in homosexuals. The problem is only reference [48] (Bailey, J.M.; Zucker, K.J. (1995). "Childhood sex-typed behavior and sexual orientation: A conceptual analysis and quantitative review". Developmental Psychology 31 (1): 43–55) and reference [50] (Zucker, K.J. (1990) Gender identity disorders in children: clinical descriptions and natural history. p.1–23) are actually cited in Bem's 1996 and 2000 papers. From what I've read, none of the other CGN studies have been cited as evidence for the theory (by Bem or other researchers) nor do any of the studies themselves purport to be evidence for the EBE theory. In other words, the relevant paragraph combines material from multiple studies to imply that the EBE theory has sufficient evidence for it, a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the CGN studies. This is improper synthesis.
Even the two studies that are properly cited (i.e., [48], [50]) are mentioned only in passing in Bem's 1996 & 2000 papers. The section does not mention how the EBE theory is based almost completely on a survey from San Francisco (i.e., Bell et al. (1981), AKA "the San Francisco study” in Bem's papers), the use of which by Bem was thoroughly critiqued in Peplau et al. (1998). I will try to add this info as well as criticism by Peplau and colleagues when I find the time.
I feel the studies on childhood gender non-conformity are noteworthy and could be moved somewhere else in the article; they should not be kept in the EBE section because it gives the misleading impression that they are scientifically-recognised empirical support for the EBE theory. — Human10.0 ( talk) 14:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Human10.0, in regards to this edit, I see no reason not to use Alan P. Bell's full name, and am surprised that you would object to it. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 19:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Biology and sexual orientation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Biology and sexual orientation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Giatrix ( talk · contribs) and Biostudent789 ( talk · contribs), if you two are students, discuss the matters -- what you want to add -- here. Even if you are not students, discuss matters here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The paragraph beginning "Vasey and VanderLaan (2010) tested the theory on the Pacific island of Samoa..." appears to be copypasted in part from the second referenced source. I didn't look too far down the reference chain to figure out if this was in error or not, but I figured I should raise the issue here for a more thorough check. - Arzg ( talk) 03:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I have been looking that, there is a information where it have been said that Hypotheses for the impact of the post-natal social environment on sexual orientation, however, are weak, especially for males. And for support of the information The journal article has been referred. But i didn't find any info in the journal article where the information has been supported. Fahim fanatic ( talk) 06:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
</ref>
tag, or remove the entire sentence and the reference.
Primefac (
talk)
13:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Yzhyjysm, make sure that you and anyone else from your class who intends to edit this article reviews WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:MEDRS. In other words, try to avoid using WP:Primary sources. Stick to secondary sources and/or tertiary sources. For example, literature reviews. Regarding this, Wikipedia is not a WP:Reliable source. Cite a reliable source directly. I reverted that edit by you. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Currently the paragraph reads ″They studied 289 pairs of identical twins (monozygotic, or from one fertilized egg) and 495 pairs of fraternal twins (dizygotic, or from two fertilized eggs) and found concordance rates for same-sex attraction of only 7.7% for male identical twins and 5.3% for females, a pattern which they say "does not suggest genetic influence independent of social context".″, but upon examining that statement (while I should note isn't actually present in the specific citation provided, though it is indeed from the published paper's abstract) I found that it wasn't said in reference to monozygotic twin pairs at all, but rather in reference to opposite-sex twin and non-twin sibling pairs. That's a pretty substantial difference, so I'm going to go ahead and remove the tail end of the paragraph.
For reference, the complete quote is: "The etiology of human same-sex romantic attraction is generally framed in terms of (1) social influences, (2) genetic influences, or (3) hormonal influences. In this article, we show that adolescent males who are opposite-sex twins are twice as likely as expected to report same-sex attraction; and that the pattern of concordance (similarity across pairs) of same-sex preference for sibling pairs does not suggest genetic influence independent of social context. Our data falsify the hormone transfer hypothesis by isolating a single condition that eliminates the opposite-sex twin effect we observe the presence of an older same-sex sibling. We also consider and reject a speculative evolutionary theory that rests on observing birth-order effects on same-sex orientation. In contrast, our results support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences." TheMurgy ( talk) 16:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Crossroads1: The research article on science magazine [1] states, "In all cases, the variance explained by the polygenic scores was extremely low (<1%); these scores could not be used to accurately predict sexual behavior in an individual.". I want to add it in the article. Lazy-restless 15:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Behavioral traits, like sexual behavior and orientation, are only partially genetic in nature. They are shaped by hundreds or thousands of genetic variants, each with a very small effect, yet they are also shaped in large part by a person’s environment and life experiences. We can therefore say with confidence that there is neither a single genetic determinant of nor single gene for same-sex sexual behavior or sexual orientation. To the extent that sexuality is influenced by genetics, it is more likely that hundreds or thousands of genetic variants are involved. These variants, together with the environment and experiences, shape outcomes like same-sex sexual behavior.From the paper:
Although only a few loci passed the stringent statistical corrections for genome-wide multiple testing and were replicated in other samples, our analyses show that many loci underlie same-sex sexual behavior in both sexes.The "many" refers to the hundreds or thousands. You should not have added your preferred quote yet. It is not enough to say your side on the talk page; you have to get consensus that it should be added, which you did not get yet. Since your preferred sentence appears to contradict the 8-25% figure, I think it might be out of context, so I need closer examination. -Crossroads- ( talk) 18:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
00:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
In the essay named Exotic becomes erotic, it has been mentioned that, "According to Bem, this feeling of difference will evoke psychological arousal when the child is near members of the gender which it considers as being "different". Bem theorizes that this psychological arousal will later be transformed into sexual arousal: children will become sexually attracted to the gender which they see as different ("exotic").
In here what does mean of that different? Is it saying about opposite gender of child or vice versa?Can anyone explain it deliberately? i didn't get many article about that theory in google. Sorghum 04:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by প্রলয়স্রোত ( talk • contribs)
I'm okay with having EBE discussed here then, but the weight on it needs to be reduced. Sxologist, I support your proposal to tidy those paragraphs up, include perspectives from LeVay and Lehmiller, [and] include the 2010 criticism
. Another thing is that I can see that the "Biological theories of cause of sexual orientation" section does suffer from
WP:Undue weight, because it spends little time discussing the academically highly favored prenatal hormone theory, but goes on at length about EBE. So in addition to the adjustments I just mentioned, I think the prenatal hormone theory should be explained in greater depth, and other well-sourced biological theories should indeed be added.
This text under EBE should probably be taken out of there: A meta-analysis of 48 studies showed childhood gender nonconformity to be the strongest predictor of a homosexual orientation for both men and women.[70] In six "prospective" studies—that is, longitudinal studies that began with gender-nonconforming boys at about age 7 and followed them up into adolescence and adulthood— 63% of the gender nonconforming boys had a homosexual or bisexual orientation as adults.[71]
Unless these papers say that their results support EBE, having them under EBE is
WP:Synthesis. However, since these are good secondary academic sources, these should probably be moved elsewhere in the article rather than cut entirely.
As a general comment/word of advice, whenever we upgrade the coverage of a topic in an article, it is good to check articles that "overlap" to make sure that the coverage there is also updated. For example, we'll make sure that EBE is discussed the same in all the articles that mention it. And yes, I can concur that fringe theories have been a problem in the topic of sexuality. And simply being outdated can occur across Wikipedia. Crossroads -talk- 06:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Sxologist, in your sandbox, you currently state state "social environment, this could include rearing styles, parenting, societal acceptance." But, as you know, that's not all that social environment means with regard to sexual orientation or behavior. It also means how genes interact with social environment (including individual, non-shared environmental experiences), as in the case of behavioral genetics (although behavioral genetics cover more than one thing) or something like the "exotic becomes erotic" theory.
As for your latest above comments, I will get back to you on that. I need to catch up with my watchlist and then log off Wikipedia. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 01:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, userspace pages like sandboxes aren't private, not even private property, since things like spam aren't allowed even there. It is available for development of encyclopedic content of course. I generally don't spend time commenting on sandboxes, since it's usually unfinished and whatever issues there are with the text might get resolved by the author anyway. If the issue remains after it is officially proposed or mainspaced, then I spend time on it. Crossroads -talk- 04:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@ প্রলয়স্রোত: I undid your which removed the 'near perfect quasi experiment'. As I wrote in the edit summary, this is not a "study that has not been replicated". It is a meta-analysis of seven follow up studies of boys who turned into girls at birth, and given estrogen. Don't accuse something of "not being replicated" when it has been replicated dozens of times, but these 7 are the only ones who have provided sexual orientation. I suggest you read the David Reimer article for the most prominent of such cases. Also, you commented that "many criticisms regarding studies which supports homosexuality is genetical have been removed earlier". Actually, I removed the 'criticisms' subheading specific to twin studies because the sources had nothing to do with gay twin studies nor the criticisms of them. I am going to propose a brief statement of the criticisms directly into this section because it is brief. The main criticism was that the samples were non-representative, and recent twin studies have used twins from population sample twin registries, which have found a concordance rate of 24% which is the best available and very likely the 'true' rate of concordance. Through twin studies, and genome wide studies, it's conclusively shown that there is a genetic basis but that other factors are at play. Criticisms of twin studies do not disprove that there is a genetic link. Sxologist ( talk) 21:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
"13 published studies have revealed that 20% to 50% of females who have congenital adrenal hyperplasia will identify as lesbian or bisexual in adulthood"(it's probably covered in Bailey). A lot of the new research and publications are interesting since they comment on peoples brains having different receptivity/uptake of androgen... meaning two people can be exposed to different amounts of androgen and have similarly 'masculinized outcomes', and inversely, two people can be exposed to different amounts of androgen and have the same masculinized outcome. McFadden covers this in this article which is a recommended read. It's paywalled but I'd recommend using a site which must not be named. Levay had similar thoughts. Anyway I'll try to focus on doing one thing at a time - but food for thought and it's pretty easy to refer to this natural experiment since it's been covered so much. Sxologist ( talk) 22:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
"rejecting these findings because of their small sample size would be a mistake, even though a larger sample would obviously be desirable. First, the findings comprise the closest test of nature versus nurture with respect to sexual orientation, and right now they are all we have. Second, the seven cases have remarkably similar outcomes with respect to sexual orientation. There is no good reason to suspect that this would change if additional cases similar to these were added. Because of the limited sample size, however, the data provide much stronger support for the importance of nature than they do for the lack of importance of nurture".Did you actually read the full statement? If you're going to recommend edits, you better provide some good evidence to do so without cherry picking a small methodological flaw. A quasi-experiment is a pretty good starting point from which scientists can infer answers from. I will remind you, these boys were also put on estrogen (which I am going to edit into the text), and many were castrated at birth. I will also include reference to the aforementioned points. But to reject such a drastic intervention as "not a big enough sample" is odd. You are not the arbiter of what get's put into a wikipedia article. Wikipedia is to summarize the findings of experts. Sxologist ( talk) 04:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Probably best to update the twins studies to the meta-analysis in Bailey's 2016 review rather than primary sources. I don't really think the 'criticisms' needs its own heading (just look at the citations for it, good lord). It's not about it being a random sample and its not about MZ concordance rates, but about (a) the difference in MZ and DZ probandwise concordance rates, and (b) the statistical model of genetic and environmental influence – and as Bailey points out, the only plausible model from these together is the multifactorial threshold model. Sxologist ( talk) 10:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Just regarding brain arrangement theories. This kind of splits into three main subcategories (as far as I am aware). The first is neurohormonal theory, linked to the exposure of androgens, or the uptake/sensitivity to them along certain regions of the brain. Then it splits into two different maternal immune response hypotheses. The first is the anti-male antibodies as demonstrated by the FBO effect. The second is a maternal immune response unrelated to male antigens, and Blanchard has (so far cautiously) implicated it in first born gay sons and even lesbians. Blanchard found that mothers with first born gay sons and lesbians had less successive children, perhaps indicating that this type of antibody effects sex differentiation processes, but unlike FBO effect, it is detrimental to the viability of future fetuses (I think it was even stronger in mothers with lesbian daughters). He did leave a comment in a journal recently that he has another paper with data coming out shortly. Since all of these three brain arrangement theories would implicate atypical sex-differentiation processes, there can be homosexuals with physiological outcomes that look attributable to neurohormonal theory but may be truly attributable to antibodies. For example, Marc Breedlove always seems to regurgitate his masculinized digit ratios for lesbians, but ignores Richard A. Lippa's digit ratio study (one of the largest) with a sample of N=2,000+ which found gay men had feminized digit ratios, and lesbians had no differences with straight women. Theres another paper in the mid-2000's with similar findings. I think the vast majority show lesbians having masculinized ratios (at least butch ones) but they are smaller than Lippa's. It gets quite complex. This may be related to a variety of different cause typologies as LeVay points out, where some are related to androgen receptivity and a third is related to antibodies – and then how much of this also implicates gene for androgen receptivity? Unfortunately the media and LGBTQ activist/groups appear to have moved largely back to a social constructionist view, for example, Rebecca Jordan-Young is frequently quoted in NYTimes articles bashing any study that implicates biology and sexual orientation, because that would mean she had to cede ground on sex differences. I guess they also don't want there to be a biological implication because it could mean prevention of sexual orientation? Anyway, J. Michael Bailey doesn't even care for physiological markers because behavior that emerges with no encouragement, and despite opposition, is the "sine qua non of innateness". In his view gender nonconforming children fare the "poster child for biological influences on gender and sexuality, and this is true whether or not we measure a single biological marker". These perspectives are outlined in a variety of papers but if I propose some edits I'd want to refer to all of the evidence (excluding the social constructionists argument, which I might briefly cover in environment/sexual orientation?). Let me know if I am missing something. Sxologist ( talk)
Crossroads, re: social constructionism, you may have already read it, but J. Michael Bailey has a great chapter on this topic in The Man Who Would Be Queen, titled “is homosexuality a modern invention?”. The entire book is available on researchgate. It’s an amusing critique of the social constructivism view. Sxologist ( talk) 14:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
References
I have raised questions over some of the pages in the past, but I am trying to get some specificity here. Under Biological influences, there are pages for
But, prenatal environment can obviously include immunological responses rather than just "prenatal hormones" as is implied by the actual article title. It's starting to look more and more like the majority of male homosexuality may be the result of immunological responses, since the antibody found in the fratenral birth order effect was more present in mothers of first born gay sons who had no older brothers (perhaps a thinner placenta leads to the maternal response having more power in such a first born). I've seen a lot of research out of Sweden indicating that first born sons are much more likely to pursue fields like engineering and politics, while later born sons are more likely to pursue art school and journalism (gay or straight)... and this often chalked up to 'parental investment of time' into first borns by sociologists... but really, it's likely that some portion of mens interest in masculine/feminine behaviors may also be the result of interplay between immunological responses and development. If all pregnant women began taking a drug which shielded developing fetuses from NLGN4Y Y-linked antibodies (in the hope of preventing a gay son), you'd likely start to see more 'feminine' traits in men disappear, and men on average would begin to skew much more to masculine/aggressive traits/behaviors. For many reasons, such a society would probably be hampered on creativity, trust, and maybe even fertility (given many heterosexual women opt for some level of femininity in men). I only put such theories here, which are supported by many scientists, as to explain how immune responses apply in a much larger way than was previously thought. This also means that FBOE very likely does apply to more than just gay men with older brothers (as is implied by boegart). Regions like Latin-America where historical birth rates were around 7 in the 1970's have a lot more homosexuality than regions like Scandinavia where birth rates sat at about 2 for the past 50 years, therefore immunological responses could explain the vast majority of gay men in such cultures... the 15-29% calculations apply to the mostly white/western datasets Blanchard had access to.
In addition, other immune responses (potentially involving blood groups) may have some explanation for other homosexuals and even lesbians (as i've mentioned before). My main question is to whether or not prenatal hormones is the correct title, or, if there needs to be a separate article for prenatal maternal immune responses?? I don't like how there are so many articles separated in general, but I feel simply having 'prenatal environment' (as it is titled under the sexual orientation infobox/sidebar) linking to a page specifically about prenatal hormones seems a little outdated/inaccurate.
I know it's annoying to have to restructure and reorganize. A side note and as and example, I've pointed out previously on this talk page, that opening with 'genes' is a little lackluster given genes have been a very disappointing field of investigation with regards to sexuality. I'd say it should be shifted below hormones or prenatal development... or maybe the article should begin with the basics of fetal development and sex-differentiation. As soon as you can grasp the fact that brain masculinization as a result of sex hormones begins at 8 weeks, it's rather easy for people to grasp how other genetic/hormonal/immunological components all play a role in that process and may effect whether one is androphilic, gynephilic or somewhere in between. Sxologist ( talk) 00:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Flyer, I see what you mean. I only ordered it in that fashion because of the Bailey review, and since it sort of relates to hormonal exposure/brain masculinization (but I guess t lacks direct evidence of the cause) But we can change that. I’ll do a proposal soon. Sxologist ( talk) 05:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment; the problem being that for example, there is a causes of trans sexuality article, but there is no central place for causes of sexual orientation in total, so it kind of lacks cohesion. But we can just move it down. Sxologist ( talk) 05:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
The 'Biological differences ...' section includes biomedical information cited to non-MEDRS sources. Any objections to a heavy trim? Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 18:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yzhyjysm.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 15:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dsackett253. Peer reviewers: Sophiaschoen, Krsmith09.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gabbyyvaldezz33. Peer reviewers: Lyz.Merola.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jackmccullar. Peer reviewers: Avacholakian.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
What are the reasons for revert of my edits User:Enlightenedstranger0 ? Saying "I oppose" is not a good reason to ignore the largest study regarding homosexuality to date published in Science. Please provide sufficient reasons for your opposition, otherwise it seems like just biased opinion and I will introduce edits again. Lpsspp ( talk) 02:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Reviews since then say basically the same things.- No. TrangaBellam ( talk) 18:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
You should read this article. Reviews since then say basically the same things.By the way I read that review and what you said is just not true. That's fact confirmed by APA. I don't understand why you're trying to deceive people. Waiting for your reply. Lpsspp ( talk) 19:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
No causal theory of sexual orientation has yet gained widespread support. The most scientifically plausible causal hypotheses are difficult to test. However, there is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial causes of sexual orientation than social causes. This evidence includes the cross-culturally robust finding that adult homosexuality is strongly related to childhood gender nonconformity; moderate genetic influences demonstrated in well-sampled twin studies; the cross-culturally robust fraternal-birth-order effect on male sexual orientation; and the finding that when infant boys are surgically and socially “changed” into girls, their eventual sexual orientation is unchanged (i.e., they remain sexually attracted to females). In contrast, evidence for the most commonly hypothesized social causes of homosexuality—sexual recruitment by homosexual adults, patterns of disordered parenting, or the influence of homosexual parents—is generally weak in magnitude and distorted by numerous confounding factors....The most common meaningful controversy across time and place has concerned the extent to which homosexuality is socially influenced and, more specifically, whether or not it spreads as a result of contagion and social tolerance. There is no good evidence that either increases the rate of homosexual orientation, although tolerance may facilitate behavioral expression of homosexual desire.(Emphasis added.)
We should stress that present findings do not support the contention that sexual orientation (the underlying compass that directs our sexual/romantic feelings) can be changed. Rather we show that how people understand and label their experiences can influenced by exposure to certain theories of sexual orientation, which arguably more accurately reflect their underlying feelings.So no, they don't believe that social influence actually changes people's underlying actual sexual 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.. (Emphasis added). They specifically state that nature AND nurture play role. Second, why at do you think that this one review should be considered as the source of last truth? Once again I gave you several links that contradict what you say and you continue to state that they should be discarded. Why is it so? It is the largest study so far, peer reviewed and accepted too one of the most famous and recognized science magazines. What authority do you have to say that it is not true? And yes, APA did meta-analysis and article on there site is the result of it. Your statement that "but there is strong evidence favoring the biological class of explanations and only weak and confounded evidence regarding the socially-learned class." is just not true as the largest study to date states and many other studies before that. All you have is one review which you try to make a single source of truth. Nobody has found a "gay gene" and never will as the study I presented shows. What kind of "biological class of explanations" is that exactly that explain it all? Even in your review they say that all the studies before struggle from methodological difficulties and now at last we have one with huge sample size and you want to discard it. Moreover, no previous studies have shown 100% concordance when studying identical twins which itself suggests that nurture plays huge role(75% at least specifically). The best what was shown is 52% concordance and it was poorly made, suffered from methodological difficulties and no other study ever shown anything similar. "So no, they don't believe that social influence actually changes people's underlying actual sexual orientation." - don't twist what they say, my friend. They didn't say that it is not nurture, they said that it which arguably more accurately reflect their underlying feelings.. You have to stress arguably here. If you are exposed to certain traditions in childhood it could be very hard to change your behavior but that doesn't mean those traditions are result of genetics. That's obvious. And also they included word
arguablythere which says that it is just their opinion at best. I can give you another hypothesis. Besides the topic is very sensitive and they might just be politically correct. And by the way, there are plenty of examples when people changed their sexual orientation with one of the most famous examples is Michael_Glatze. "There is no good reason to remove any review article," - ok, let's not remove it. Let's rephrase and present all of the opinions including APA's. Currently the article is heavily biased toward one specific opinion which is obviously not consensus and not representative. "it is but one of many individual studies on genetic data. " - once again it's not "one of many" it's the largest study to date with the sample size at lest 100 times more than any other. You can not just discard it. Currently WP:DUE is being violated by presenting review you mentioned before like it is the consensus but it is not. My statement is that currently the wiki article is heavily biased and doesn't include diversity of opinions of scientists and violates WP:DUE. Environmental factors play huge role in forming of homosexual behavior as shown by many peer reviewed papers including largest study to date(sample size at least 100 times more than any previous one) and it is just unfair and misleading to reject it. What we should do is to change the phrasing of what is written on the page to include diversity of opinions until scientific community reach the consensus. Lpsspp ( talk) 13:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
None of the sources that you have presented contradict the sources we have that scientists favor biological theoriesThat is just not true. APA explicitly states that " 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 mentions "hormonal, developmental" alongside genetic before mentioning socio-cultural factors- ahhhh, and so what. Why did you decide that order there plays any role? Is it stated somewhere? Actually they state completely the opposite:
no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Stop twisting what they say please.
to stem from the fact that there are many routes of explanation that are biological but non-genetic- APA explicitly state that sociocultural factors play role as well. Stop cherry-picking.
Such things can also sometimes be referred to as "nurture" or "environmental" in contrast to genetics, but they are still biological- that is just not true. Sociocultural factors are not biological, nurture is not biological, that's complete nonsense. Collins dictionary defines norture as "Nurture is care that is given to someone while they are growing and developing.". Cambrige dictionary defines it as "the way in which children are treated as they are growing, especially as compared with the characteristics they are born with". So clearly not "biological". "The hypothesized cause of the fraternal birth order effect illustrates this" - fraternal birth effect is not nurture. It's clear as a day. And it's not proven. "Almost all, if not all, the ongoing research on the causes of one's actual, psychological sexual orientation focuses on biological routes of causation" - that is not true. The paper(the largest study todate with two orders of magnitude more sample size than any other) I presented to you specifically states that sociocultural factors should be considered.I, once again, don't understand why you are trying to reject it, it is the most accurate study to date we have. It seems like a huge bias from you.
While it is true that it is not definitely known that it is 100% biological, scientists do favor this class of explanations- you keep repeating this but it's not true. APA states this explicitly and you keep ignoring it. Do you have any related education to rebut what they say?
ointing to Michael Glatze, who became a conservative Christian, doesn't support your case- it clearly supports the case that people cane change their sexuality. It doesn't matter how he did it and who he became. The fact is he changed his sexual behavior from being gay to being straight. Your personal bias towards Christianity is not relatable here.
There is no good evidence that people who claim to be ex-gay have been able to change their sexual orientation, and conversion therapy does not work- I didn't say anything about conversion therapy and how exactly he did that. I just said that he changed his sexuality. Are you trying to say that you don't believe him and he is still gay? Please elaborate on that because your point here is unclear. And speaking of your statement that it
"doesn't work"- it is not true once again. Actually APA states that
There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation.not that it doesn't work. And
Although there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation, some individuals modified their sexual orientation identity (i.e., group membership and affiliation), behavior, and values (Nicolosi, Byrd, & Potts, 2000). They did so in a variety of ways and with varied and unpredictable outcomes, some of which were temporary (Beckstead & Morrow, 2004; Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002). Again they never stated that it didn't work and actually say that some changed their sexual behavior. Also please answer why you suggest that the paper you're referring to should be the single source of truth where other sources suggest different things? Once again: APA statement clearly says that sociocultural environment considered as one of the factors. The paper I provided states that sociocultural environment should definitely be considered in future studies. This study for example says that
The etiology of human same-sex romantic attraction is generally framed in terms of (1) social influences, (2) genetic influences, or (3) hormonal influences. In this article, we show that adolescent males who are opposite-sex twins are twice as likely as expected to report same-sex attraction; and that the pattern of concordance (similarity across pairs) of same-sex preference for sibling pairs does not suggest genetic influence independent of social context. Our data falsify the hormone transfer hypothesis by isolating a single condition that eliminates the opposite-sex twin effect we observe-the presence of an older same-sex sibling. We also consider and reject a speculative evolutionary theory that rests on observing birth-order effects on same-sex orientation. In contrast, our results support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences.. This study says
Univariate analyses showed that familial factors were important for all traits, but were less successful in distinguishing genetic from shared environmental influences.. So I completely don't get why you're saying that environmental factors play any role here. Virtualy every study you take states that genes play some role but environmental(physical or sociocultural) play it as well. Lpsspp ( talk) 20:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Crossroads, I propose you don't expend your energy on this rathe-ripe editor, who came here citing the little-known essay Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary and speaks of the possibility of sexual orientation change efforts working. If the editor wants to argue for sexual orientation change efforts/conversion therapy, they know where to find those articles and their talk pages. If the editor wants to continue to argue that we should remove the well-supported "Hypotheses for the impact of the post-natal social environment on sexual orientation, however, are weak, especially for males.", I don't doubt that they also know where to find WP:DR. There's nothing to argue here. The evidence is much stronger for biological causes, including prenatal environment. Scientists haven't dismissed the role of non-biological factors, but neither have they given them as much weight as they've given biological factors. Enlightenedstranger0 ( talk) 22:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
the little-known essay Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary- what is exactly wrong with that page, except that you don't like it because it doesn't serve your purposes? {{and speaks of the possibility of sexual orientation change efforts working.}} - I never made any statement of conversion therapy working or not. All I did was citing APA which is respectful psychological organization which says that "There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation". It is a scientific fact. If this fact doesn't fit into your picture of the world it's entirely your problem not the problem of the facts. If you have any arguments against what is said at APA site you should write them and express your concerns involving scientific facts. You have to learn how to convey a conversation without lying.
If the editor wants to continue to argue that we should remove the well-supported "Hypotheses for the impact of the post-natal social environment on sexual orientation, however, are weak, especially for males.",- first of all, we should rephrase it yes. Second of all once again as APA and other scientific papers state this hypothesis is not as "well-supported" as you wish to portray that. The only proof for that is paper which co-autor Lisa Diamond later gave speech and explicitly said that "born this way argument is not scientific". Once again if the facts contradict your worldview it's entirely your problem.
There's nothing to argue here. The evidence is much stronger for biological causes, including prenatal environment- that is just false. The largest study suggests that environment plays huge role. Do you have education required to asses which scientific paper is correct and which is not?
Scientists haven't dismissed the role of non-biological factors, but neither have they given them as much weight as they've given biological factors.- that is once again pure lying in favor of your world view. You have to read the latest papers on the topic and talk Lisa Diamond(lesbian by the way) gave on TED. Conclusion: please stop twisting my words and start presenting proofs of what you say instead of pure statements. You are not at a rally here. Lpsspp ( talk) 11:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
but I'm not going to bite in the way you want me to- you can think whatever you want. The fact is not everything you think is true.
I'm saying you're awfully familiar with Wikipedia for someone with as few edits as you have- is it good or bad? Why would you mention that at all?
I don't know what you think you know about my education, but whatever you think you know is a product of your imagination and not relevant to this discussion- what I'm saying is that not having relevant education merely means that you can not properly assess information presented in those articles. That is it.
And by the way, I'm sure you meant "assess" and not "asses."- oh, yes, you're completely right here. I'm happy that you can distinguish those two.
You did argue for the possibility of sexual orientation change efforts working- that is not true. I argued that there are people who were homosexual and then became straight. How exactly they did it is a subject for a separate study obviously. But you can not deny that such people do exist.
They don't work.- that statement is a lying. There are no scientific evidence that can conclude if they work or not.
You've also misrepresented Diamond here.- oh, that's obviously not true. I merely cited what she said. You can go and check yourself.
Non-biological causes don't appear to have no role, but the research so far indicates that they do not have a big role, especially when males are considered.- well, APA states the opposite. As other studies do as well.
We know scientists say "complex roles" in terms of biological and non-biological impacts on sexual orientation. This article says it in the first sentence paragraph. So you added information that is already there and not required.- this article misrepresents the diversity of opinions on the topic and is biased towards one specific based on one review which is chosen to be "the gold standard" for some reason. The reason for that is unknown.
You also appear to be neglecting other biological factors, such as prenatal environment and hormones- that is, once again not true, if you read what I wrote carefully you'll notice that environmental factors include hormones and other biological factors along with sociocultural ones.
landscape that moves at a snail's pace- quite a controversial statement.
The APA statement is a much older statement, doesn't support what you argue here- and what do you think I argue? I only argue that environmental factors including sociocultural ones play role in sexual orientation. And APA's statement perfectly supports that.
and they've made other statements on the research since then.- like what? Do you have a link to those "other statements"?
What is this "sociocultural environment" you're referring to?- sociocultural factors may be shared or individual. Shared factors are such things as political environment, cultural environment and so on. Individual factors are such things as illnesses people were exposed to, individual sexual experience, bullying, sexual abuse(homosexual people are more likely to have had sexual abuse experience in childhood for example). You can add whatever you want it's up to you. Lpsspp ( talk) 16:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
The overly simplistic “ever or never” behavioral phenotype used by Ganna et al. led to widespread public confusion about the meaning of their study. Most accounts of the research, both in the scientific and mass media, focused on the research’s implications for “gay genes,” “sources of same-sex attraction,” and “causes of homosexuality,” even though the study did not in fact investigate attraction or sexual orientation.This is a perfect example of why we don't rely on single studies, even with a large sample size.
The bottom line is that no sources of equivalent or greater quality have been shown that contradict that evidence for social causes are weak- it is just false. I presented several sources including APA statement and largest study to date that show that social causes are considered as one of the origins of social behavior. Bottom line here is that you just ignored them all saying that they are not significant which is once again false. Lisa Diamond at her TED talk explicitly stated that "born this way" argument is not scientific anymore and sexual orientation is not fixed and can change during person's life. Appealing ti Dean Hammer is just sheer nonsense - he quit his scientific carrier and became a filmmaker. He is trying to protect his Xq28 gene hypothesis which has never been robustly confirmed(refer to Xq28 "Subsequent studies"). And once again it's not one study. You can find at least three above. Open your eyes. Lpsspp ( talk) 10:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Articles on sexual orientation are filled with claims that male homosexuality is linked to "feminization" or "demasculinization"; Why so much insistence on these assumptions? It's almost like they're "proven facts". For example, maternal immunization theoretically affects all fetuses, including those who will be heterosexual in the future, so it is just as possible that antibodies against male antigens are responsible for heterosexuality as it is for homosexuality. Nobody knows how such antibodies interact with such antigens, how cells and molecules react, if the fetus itself does not operate some kind of defense against maternal immunization, but they already assume that male homosexuality is derived from a congenital sexual deficiency. I appeal to you all to treat the hypotheses raised by these studies with the greatest care and neutrality as possible, without inferring (or categorically stating) that homosexuality is originated from sexual defects. It is all very speculative, therefore homosexuals do not deserve to be seen in the academic environment nor for Wikipedia readers as intersex or as people who were not very well sexually differentiated. Grateful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.95.47.193 ( talk) 17:16, 17 March 2022 (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 |
(Note: The citation given for the section's first paragraph is Bem's year 2000 paper on the exotic becomes erotic (EBE) theory. The citation also links to a PDF of Bem's seminal 1996 paper on the EBE theory).
The second paragraph of the section is a lengthy discussion of studies showing a higher rate of childhood gender non-conformity (CGN) in homosexuals. The problem is only reference [48] (Bailey, J.M.; Zucker, K.J. (1995). "Childhood sex-typed behavior and sexual orientation: A conceptual analysis and quantitative review". Developmental Psychology 31 (1): 43–55) and reference [50] (Zucker, K.J. (1990) Gender identity disorders in children: clinical descriptions and natural history. p.1–23) are actually cited in Bem's 1996 and 2000 papers. From what I've read, none of the other CGN studies have been cited as evidence for the theory (by Bem or other researchers) nor do any of the studies themselves purport to be evidence for the EBE theory. In other words, the relevant paragraph combines material from multiple studies to imply that the EBE theory has sufficient evidence for it, a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the CGN studies. This is improper synthesis.
Even the two studies that are properly cited (i.e., [48], [50]) are mentioned only in passing in Bem's 1996 & 2000 papers. The section does not mention how the EBE theory is based almost completely on a survey from San Francisco (i.e., Bell et al. (1981), AKA "the San Francisco study” in Bem's papers), the use of which by Bem was thoroughly critiqued in Peplau et al. (1998). I will try to add this info as well as criticism by Peplau and colleagues when I find the time.
I feel the studies on childhood gender non-conformity are noteworthy and could be moved somewhere else in the article; they should not be kept in the EBE section because it gives the misleading impression that they are scientifically-recognised empirical support for the EBE theory. — Human10.0 ( talk) 14:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Human10.0, in regards to this edit, I see no reason not to use Alan P. Bell's full name, and am surprised that you would object to it. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 19:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Biology and sexual orientation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Biology and sexual orientation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Giatrix ( talk · contribs) and Biostudent789 ( talk · contribs), if you two are students, discuss the matters -- what you want to add -- here. Even if you are not students, discuss matters here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The paragraph beginning "Vasey and VanderLaan (2010) tested the theory on the Pacific island of Samoa..." appears to be copypasted in part from the second referenced source. I didn't look too far down the reference chain to figure out if this was in error or not, but I figured I should raise the issue here for a more thorough check. - Arzg ( talk) 03:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I have been looking that, there is a information where it have been said that Hypotheses for the impact of the post-natal social environment on sexual orientation, however, are weak, especially for males. And for support of the information The journal article has been referred. But i didn't find any info in the journal article where the information has been supported. Fahim fanatic ( talk) 06:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
</ref>
tag, or remove the entire sentence and the reference.
Primefac (
talk)
13:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Yzhyjysm, make sure that you and anyone else from your class who intends to edit this article reviews WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:MEDRS. In other words, try to avoid using WP:Primary sources. Stick to secondary sources and/or tertiary sources. For example, literature reviews. Regarding this, Wikipedia is not a WP:Reliable source. Cite a reliable source directly. I reverted that edit by you. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Currently the paragraph reads ″They studied 289 pairs of identical twins (monozygotic, or from one fertilized egg) and 495 pairs of fraternal twins (dizygotic, or from two fertilized eggs) and found concordance rates for same-sex attraction of only 7.7% for male identical twins and 5.3% for females, a pattern which they say "does not suggest genetic influence independent of social context".″, but upon examining that statement (while I should note isn't actually present in the specific citation provided, though it is indeed from the published paper's abstract) I found that it wasn't said in reference to monozygotic twin pairs at all, but rather in reference to opposite-sex twin and non-twin sibling pairs. That's a pretty substantial difference, so I'm going to go ahead and remove the tail end of the paragraph.
For reference, the complete quote is: "The etiology of human same-sex romantic attraction is generally framed in terms of (1) social influences, (2) genetic influences, or (3) hormonal influences. In this article, we show that adolescent males who are opposite-sex twins are twice as likely as expected to report same-sex attraction; and that the pattern of concordance (similarity across pairs) of same-sex preference for sibling pairs does not suggest genetic influence independent of social context. Our data falsify the hormone transfer hypothesis by isolating a single condition that eliminates the opposite-sex twin effect we observe the presence of an older same-sex sibling. We also consider and reject a speculative evolutionary theory that rests on observing birth-order effects on same-sex orientation. In contrast, our results support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences." TheMurgy ( talk) 16:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Crossroads1: The research article on science magazine [1] states, "In all cases, the variance explained by the polygenic scores was extremely low (<1%); these scores could not be used to accurately predict sexual behavior in an individual.". I want to add it in the article. Lazy-restless 15:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Behavioral traits, like sexual behavior and orientation, are only partially genetic in nature. They are shaped by hundreds or thousands of genetic variants, each with a very small effect, yet they are also shaped in large part by a person’s environment and life experiences. We can therefore say with confidence that there is neither a single genetic determinant of nor single gene for same-sex sexual behavior or sexual orientation. To the extent that sexuality is influenced by genetics, it is more likely that hundreds or thousands of genetic variants are involved. These variants, together with the environment and experiences, shape outcomes like same-sex sexual behavior.From the paper:
Although only a few loci passed the stringent statistical corrections for genome-wide multiple testing and were replicated in other samples, our analyses show that many loci underlie same-sex sexual behavior in both sexes.The "many" refers to the hundreds or thousands. You should not have added your preferred quote yet. It is not enough to say your side on the talk page; you have to get consensus that it should be added, which you did not get yet. Since your preferred sentence appears to contradict the 8-25% figure, I think it might be out of context, so I need closer examination. -Crossroads- ( talk) 18:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
00:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
In the essay named Exotic becomes erotic, it has been mentioned that, "According to Bem, this feeling of difference will evoke psychological arousal when the child is near members of the gender which it considers as being "different". Bem theorizes that this psychological arousal will later be transformed into sexual arousal: children will become sexually attracted to the gender which they see as different ("exotic").
In here what does mean of that different? Is it saying about opposite gender of child or vice versa?Can anyone explain it deliberately? i didn't get many article about that theory in google. Sorghum 04:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by প্রলয়স্রোত ( talk • contribs)
I'm okay with having EBE discussed here then, but the weight on it needs to be reduced. Sxologist, I support your proposal to tidy those paragraphs up, include perspectives from LeVay and Lehmiller, [and] include the 2010 criticism
. Another thing is that I can see that the "Biological theories of cause of sexual orientation" section does suffer from
WP:Undue weight, because it spends little time discussing the academically highly favored prenatal hormone theory, but goes on at length about EBE. So in addition to the adjustments I just mentioned, I think the prenatal hormone theory should be explained in greater depth, and other well-sourced biological theories should indeed be added.
This text under EBE should probably be taken out of there: A meta-analysis of 48 studies showed childhood gender nonconformity to be the strongest predictor of a homosexual orientation for both men and women.[70] In six "prospective" studies—that is, longitudinal studies that began with gender-nonconforming boys at about age 7 and followed them up into adolescence and adulthood— 63% of the gender nonconforming boys had a homosexual or bisexual orientation as adults.[71]
Unless these papers say that their results support EBE, having them under EBE is
WP:Synthesis. However, since these are good secondary academic sources, these should probably be moved elsewhere in the article rather than cut entirely.
As a general comment/word of advice, whenever we upgrade the coverage of a topic in an article, it is good to check articles that "overlap" to make sure that the coverage there is also updated. For example, we'll make sure that EBE is discussed the same in all the articles that mention it. And yes, I can concur that fringe theories have been a problem in the topic of sexuality. And simply being outdated can occur across Wikipedia. Crossroads -talk- 06:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Sxologist, in your sandbox, you currently state state "social environment, this could include rearing styles, parenting, societal acceptance." But, as you know, that's not all that social environment means with regard to sexual orientation or behavior. It also means how genes interact with social environment (including individual, non-shared environmental experiences), as in the case of behavioral genetics (although behavioral genetics cover more than one thing) or something like the "exotic becomes erotic" theory.
As for your latest above comments, I will get back to you on that. I need to catch up with my watchlist and then log off Wikipedia. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 01:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, userspace pages like sandboxes aren't private, not even private property, since things like spam aren't allowed even there. It is available for development of encyclopedic content of course. I generally don't spend time commenting on sandboxes, since it's usually unfinished and whatever issues there are with the text might get resolved by the author anyway. If the issue remains after it is officially proposed or mainspaced, then I spend time on it. Crossroads -talk- 04:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@ প্রলয়স্রোত: I undid your which removed the 'near perfect quasi experiment'. As I wrote in the edit summary, this is not a "study that has not been replicated". It is a meta-analysis of seven follow up studies of boys who turned into girls at birth, and given estrogen. Don't accuse something of "not being replicated" when it has been replicated dozens of times, but these 7 are the only ones who have provided sexual orientation. I suggest you read the David Reimer article for the most prominent of such cases. Also, you commented that "many criticisms regarding studies which supports homosexuality is genetical have been removed earlier". Actually, I removed the 'criticisms' subheading specific to twin studies because the sources had nothing to do with gay twin studies nor the criticisms of them. I am going to propose a brief statement of the criticisms directly into this section because it is brief. The main criticism was that the samples were non-representative, and recent twin studies have used twins from population sample twin registries, which have found a concordance rate of 24% which is the best available and very likely the 'true' rate of concordance. Through twin studies, and genome wide studies, it's conclusively shown that there is a genetic basis but that other factors are at play. Criticisms of twin studies do not disprove that there is a genetic link. Sxologist ( talk) 21:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
"13 published studies have revealed that 20% to 50% of females who have congenital adrenal hyperplasia will identify as lesbian or bisexual in adulthood"(it's probably covered in Bailey). A lot of the new research and publications are interesting since they comment on peoples brains having different receptivity/uptake of androgen... meaning two people can be exposed to different amounts of androgen and have similarly 'masculinized outcomes', and inversely, two people can be exposed to different amounts of androgen and have the same masculinized outcome. McFadden covers this in this article which is a recommended read. It's paywalled but I'd recommend using a site which must not be named. Levay had similar thoughts. Anyway I'll try to focus on doing one thing at a time - but food for thought and it's pretty easy to refer to this natural experiment since it's been covered so much. Sxologist ( talk) 22:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
"rejecting these findings because of their small sample size would be a mistake, even though a larger sample would obviously be desirable. First, the findings comprise the closest test of nature versus nurture with respect to sexual orientation, and right now they are all we have. Second, the seven cases have remarkably similar outcomes with respect to sexual orientation. There is no good reason to suspect that this would change if additional cases similar to these were added. Because of the limited sample size, however, the data provide much stronger support for the importance of nature than they do for the lack of importance of nurture".Did you actually read the full statement? If you're going to recommend edits, you better provide some good evidence to do so without cherry picking a small methodological flaw. A quasi-experiment is a pretty good starting point from which scientists can infer answers from. I will remind you, these boys were also put on estrogen (which I am going to edit into the text), and many were castrated at birth. I will also include reference to the aforementioned points. But to reject such a drastic intervention as "not a big enough sample" is odd. You are not the arbiter of what get's put into a wikipedia article. Wikipedia is to summarize the findings of experts. Sxologist ( talk) 04:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Probably best to update the twins studies to the meta-analysis in Bailey's 2016 review rather than primary sources. I don't really think the 'criticisms' needs its own heading (just look at the citations for it, good lord). It's not about it being a random sample and its not about MZ concordance rates, but about (a) the difference in MZ and DZ probandwise concordance rates, and (b) the statistical model of genetic and environmental influence – and as Bailey points out, the only plausible model from these together is the multifactorial threshold model. Sxologist ( talk) 10:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Just regarding brain arrangement theories. This kind of splits into three main subcategories (as far as I am aware). The first is neurohormonal theory, linked to the exposure of androgens, or the uptake/sensitivity to them along certain regions of the brain. Then it splits into two different maternal immune response hypotheses. The first is the anti-male antibodies as demonstrated by the FBO effect. The second is a maternal immune response unrelated to male antigens, and Blanchard has (so far cautiously) implicated it in first born gay sons and even lesbians. Blanchard found that mothers with first born gay sons and lesbians had less successive children, perhaps indicating that this type of antibody effects sex differentiation processes, but unlike FBO effect, it is detrimental to the viability of future fetuses (I think it was even stronger in mothers with lesbian daughters). He did leave a comment in a journal recently that he has another paper with data coming out shortly. Since all of these three brain arrangement theories would implicate atypical sex-differentiation processes, there can be homosexuals with physiological outcomes that look attributable to neurohormonal theory but may be truly attributable to antibodies. For example, Marc Breedlove always seems to regurgitate his masculinized digit ratios for lesbians, but ignores Richard A. Lippa's digit ratio study (one of the largest) with a sample of N=2,000+ which found gay men had feminized digit ratios, and lesbians had no differences with straight women. Theres another paper in the mid-2000's with similar findings. I think the vast majority show lesbians having masculinized ratios (at least butch ones) but they are smaller than Lippa's. It gets quite complex. This may be related to a variety of different cause typologies as LeVay points out, where some are related to androgen receptivity and a third is related to antibodies – and then how much of this also implicates gene for androgen receptivity? Unfortunately the media and LGBTQ activist/groups appear to have moved largely back to a social constructionist view, for example, Rebecca Jordan-Young is frequently quoted in NYTimes articles bashing any study that implicates biology and sexual orientation, because that would mean she had to cede ground on sex differences. I guess they also don't want there to be a biological implication because it could mean prevention of sexual orientation? Anyway, J. Michael Bailey doesn't even care for physiological markers because behavior that emerges with no encouragement, and despite opposition, is the "sine qua non of innateness". In his view gender nonconforming children fare the "poster child for biological influences on gender and sexuality, and this is true whether or not we measure a single biological marker". These perspectives are outlined in a variety of papers but if I propose some edits I'd want to refer to all of the evidence (excluding the social constructionists argument, which I might briefly cover in environment/sexual orientation?). Let me know if I am missing something. Sxologist ( talk)
Crossroads, re: social constructionism, you may have already read it, but J. Michael Bailey has a great chapter on this topic in The Man Who Would Be Queen, titled “is homosexuality a modern invention?”. The entire book is available on researchgate. It’s an amusing critique of the social constructivism view. Sxologist ( talk) 14:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
References
I have raised questions over some of the pages in the past, but I am trying to get some specificity here. Under Biological influences, there are pages for
But, prenatal environment can obviously include immunological responses rather than just "prenatal hormones" as is implied by the actual article title. It's starting to look more and more like the majority of male homosexuality may be the result of immunological responses, since the antibody found in the fratenral birth order effect was more present in mothers of first born gay sons who had no older brothers (perhaps a thinner placenta leads to the maternal response having more power in such a first born). I've seen a lot of research out of Sweden indicating that first born sons are much more likely to pursue fields like engineering and politics, while later born sons are more likely to pursue art school and journalism (gay or straight)... and this often chalked up to 'parental investment of time' into first borns by sociologists... but really, it's likely that some portion of mens interest in masculine/feminine behaviors may also be the result of interplay between immunological responses and development. If all pregnant women began taking a drug which shielded developing fetuses from NLGN4Y Y-linked antibodies (in the hope of preventing a gay son), you'd likely start to see more 'feminine' traits in men disappear, and men on average would begin to skew much more to masculine/aggressive traits/behaviors. For many reasons, such a society would probably be hampered on creativity, trust, and maybe even fertility (given many heterosexual women opt for some level of femininity in men). I only put such theories here, which are supported by many scientists, as to explain how immune responses apply in a much larger way than was previously thought. This also means that FBOE very likely does apply to more than just gay men with older brothers (as is implied by boegart). Regions like Latin-America where historical birth rates were around 7 in the 1970's have a lot more homosexuality than regions like Scandinavia where birth rates sat at about 2 for the past 50 years, therefore immunological responses could explain the vast majority of gay men in such cultures... the 15-29% calculations apply to the mostly white/western datasets Blanchard had access to.
In addition, other immune responses (potentially involving blood groups) may have some explanation for other homosexuals and even lesbians (as i've mentioned before). My main question is to whether or not prenatal hormones is the correct title, or, if there needs to be a separate article for prenatal maternal immune responses?? I don't like how there are so many articles separated in general, but I feel simply having 'prenatal environment' (as it is titled under the sexual orientation infobox/sidebar) linking to a page specifically about prenatal hormones seems a little outdated/inaccurate.
I know it's annoying to have to restructure and reorganize. A side note and as and example, I've pointed out previously on this talk page, that opening with 'genes' is a little lackluster given genes have been a very disappointing field of investigation with regards to sexuality. I'd say it should be shifted below hormones or prenatal development... or maybe the article should begin with the basics of fetal development and sex-differentiation. As soon as you can grasp the fact that brain masculinization as a result of sex hormones begins at 8 weeks, it's rather easy for people to grasp how other genetic/hormonal/immunological components all play a role in that process and may effect whether one is androphilic, gynephilic or somewhere in between. Sxologist ( talk) 00:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Flyer, I see what you mean. I only ordered it in that fashion because of the Bailey review, and since it sort of relates to hormonal exposure/brain masculinization (but I guess t lacks direct evidence of the cause) But we can change that. I’ll do a proposal soon. Sxologist ( talk) 05:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment; the problem being that for example, there is a causes of trans sexuality article, but there is no central place for causes of sexual orientation in total, so it kind of lacks cohesion. But we can just move it down. Sxologist ( talk) 05:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
The 'Biological differences ...' section includes biomedical information cited to non-MEDRS sources. Any objections to a heavy trim? Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 18:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yzhyjysm.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 15:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dsackett253. Peer reviewers: Sophiaschoen, Krsmith09.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gabbyyvaldezz33. Peer reviewers: Lyz.Merola.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jackmccullar. Peer reviewers: Avacholakian.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
What are the reasons for revert of my edits User:Enlightenedstranger0 ? Saying "I oppose" is not a good reason to ignore the largest study regarding homosexuality to date published in Science. Please provide sufficient reasons for your opposition, otherwise it seems like just biased opinion and I will introduce edits again. Lpsspp ( talk) 02:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Reviews since then say basically the same things.- No. TrangaBellam ( talk) 18:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
You should read this article. Reviews since then say basically the same things.By the way I read that review and what you said is just not true. That's fact confirmed by APA. I don't understand why you're trying to deceive people. Waiting for your reply. Lpsspp ( talk) 19:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
No causal theory of sexual orientation has yet gained widespread support. The most scientifically plausible causal hypotheses are difficult to test. However, there is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial causes of sexual orientation than social causes. This evidence includes the cross-culturally robust finding that adult homosexuality is strongly related to childhood gender nonconformity; moderate genetic influences demonstrated in well-sampled twin studies; the cross-culturally robust fraternal-birth-order effect on male sexual orientation; and the finding that when infant boys are surgically and socially “changed” into girls, their eventual sexual orientation is unchanged (i.e., they remain sexually attracted to females). In contrast, evidence for the most commonly hypothesized social causes of homosexuality—sexual recruitment by homosexual adults, patterns of disordered parenting, or the influence of homosexual parents—is generally weak in magnitude and distorted by numerous confounding factors....The most common meaningful controversy across time and place has concerned the extent to which homosexuality is socially influenced and, more specifically, whether or not it spreads as a result of contagion and social tolerance. There is no good evidence that either increases the rate of homosexual orientation, although tolerance may facilitate behavioral expression of homosexual desire.(Emphasis added.)
We should stress that present findings do not support the contention that sexual orientation (the underlying compass that directs our sexual/romantic feelings) can be changed. Rather we show that how people understand and label their experiences can influenced by exposure to certain theories of sexual orientation, which arguably more accurately reflect their underlying feelings.So no, they don't believe that social influence actually changes people's underlying actual sexual 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.. (Emphasis added). They specifically state that nature AND nurture play role. Second, why at do you think that this one review should be considered as the source of last truth? Once again I gave you several links that contradict what you say and you continue to state that they should be discarded. Why is it so? It is the largest study so far, peer reviewed and accepted too one of the most famous and recognized science magazines. What authority do you have to say that it is not true? And yes, APA did meta-analysis and article on there site is the result of it. Your statement that "but there is strong evidence favoring the biological class of explanations and only weak and confounded evidence regarding the socially-learned class." is just not true as the largest study to date states and many other studies before that. All you have is one review which you try to make a single source of truth. Nobody has found a "gay gene" and never will as the study I presented shows. What kind of "biological class of explanations" is that exactly that explain it all? Even in your review they say that all the studies before struggle from methodological difficulties and now at last we have one with huge sample size and you want to discard it. Moreover, no previous studies have shown 100% concordance when studying identical twins which itself suggests that nurture plays huge role(75% at least specifically). The best what was shown is 52% concordance and it was poorly made, suffered from methodological difficulties and no other study ever shown anything similar. "So no, they don't believe that social influence actually changes people's underlying actual sexual orientation." - don't twist what they say, my friend. They didn't say that it is not nurture, they said that it which arguably more accurately reflect their underlying feelings.. You have to stress arguably here. If you are exposed to certain traditions in childhood it could be very hard to change your behavior but that doesn't mean those traditions are result of genetics. That's obvious. And also they included word
arguablythere which says that it is just their opinion at best. I can give you another hypothesis. Besides the topic is very sensitive and they might just be politically correct. And by the way, there are plenty of examples when people changed their sexual orientation with one of the most famous examples is Michael_Glatze. "There is no good reason to remove any review article," - ok, let's not remove it. Let's rephrase and present all of the opinions including APA's. Currently the article is heavily biased toward one specific opinion which is obviously not consensus and not representative. "it is but one of many individual studies on genetic data. " - once again it's not "one of many" it's the largest study to date with the sample size at lest 100 times more than any other. You can not just discard it. Currently WP:DUE is being violated by presenting review you mentioned before like it is the consensus but it is not. My statement is that currently the wiki article is heavily biased and doesn't include diversity of opinions of scientists and violates WP:DUE. Environmental factors play huge role in forming of homosexual behavior as shown by many peer reviewed papers including largest study to date(sample size at least 100 times more than any previous one) and it is just unfair and misleading to reject it. What we should do is to change the phrasing of what is written on the page to include diversity of opinions until scientific community reach the consensus. Lpsspp ( talk) 13:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
None of the sources that you have presented contradict the sources we have that scientists favor biological theoriesThat is just not true. APA explicitly states that " 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 mentions "hormonal, developmental" alongside genetic before mentioning socio-cultural factors- ahhhh, and so what. Why did you decide that order there plays any role? Is it stated somewhere? Actually they state completely the opposite:
no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Stop twisting what they say please.
to stem from the fact that there are many routes of explanation that are biological but non-genetic- APA explicitly state that sociocultural factors play role as well. Stop cherry-picking.
Such things can also sometimes be referred to as "nurture" or "environmental" in contrast to genetics, but they are still biological- that is just not true. Sociocultural factors are not biological, nurture is not biological, that's complete nonsense. Collins dictionary defines norture as "Nurture is care that is given to someone while they are growing and developing.". Cambrige dictionary defines it as "the way in which children are treated as they are growing, especially as compared with the characteristics they are born with". So clearly not "biological". "The hypothesized cause of the fraternal birth order effect illustrates this" - fraternal birth effect is not nurture. It's clear as a day. And it's not proven. "Almost all, if not all, the ongoing research on the causes of one's actual, psychological sexual orientation focuses on biological routes of causation" - that is not true. The paper(the largest study todate with two orders of magnitude more sample size than any other) I presented to you specifically states that sociocultural factors should be considered.I, once again, don't understand why you are trying to reject it, it is the most accurate study to date we have. It seems like a huge bias from you.
While it is true that it is not definitely known that it is 100% biological, scientists do favor this class of explanations- you keep repeating this but it's not true. APA states this explicitly and you keep ignoring it. Do you have any related education to rebut what they say?
ointing to Michael Glatze, who became a conservative Christian, doesn't support your case- it clearly supports the case that people cane change their sexuality. It doesn't matter how he did it and who he became. The fact is he changed his sexual behavior from being gay to being straight. Your personal bias towards Christianity is not relatable here.
There is no good evidence that people who claim to be ex-gay have been able to change their sexual orientation, and conversion therapy does not work- I didn't say anything about conversion therapy and how exactly he did that. I just said that he changed his sexuality. Are you trying to say that you don't believe him and he is still gay? Please elaborate on that because your point here is unclear. And speaking of your statement that it
"doesn't work"- it is not true once again. Actually APA states that
There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation.not that it doesn't work. And
Although there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation, some individuals modified their sexual orientation identity (i.e., group membership and affiliation), behavior, and values (Nicolosi, Byrd, & Potts, 2000). They did so in a variety of ways and with varied and unpredictable outcomes, some of which were temporary (Beckstead & Morrow, 2004; Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002). Again they never stated that it didn't work and actually say that some changed their sexual behavior. Also please answer why you suggest that the paper you're referring to should be the single source of truth where other sources suggest different things? Once again: APA statement clearly says that sociocultural environment considered as one of the factors. The paper I provided states that sociocultural environment should definitely be considered in future studies. This study for example says that
The etiology of human same-sex romantic attraction is generally framed in terms of (1) social influences, (2) genetic influences, or (3) hormonal influences. In this article, we show that adolescent males who are opposite-sex twins are twice as likely as expected to report same-sex attraction; and that the pattern of concordance (similarity across pairs) of same-sex preference for sibling pairs does not suggest genetic influence independent of social context. Our data falsify the hormone transfer hypothesis by isolating a single condition that eliminates the opposite-sex twin effect we observe-the presence of an older same-sex sibling. We also consider and reject a speculative evolutionary theory that rests on observing birth-order effects on same-sex orientation. In contrast, our results support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences.. This study says
Univariate analyses showed that familial factors were important for all traits, but were less successful in distinguishing genetic from shared environmental influences.. So I completely don't get why you're saying that environmental factors play any role here. Virtualy every study you take states that genes play some role but environmental(physical or sociocultural) play it as well. Lpsspp ( talk) 20:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Crossroads, I propose you don't expend your energy on this rathe-ripe editor, who came here citing the little-known essay Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary and speaks of the possibility of sexual orientation change efforts working. If the editor wants to argue for sexual orientation change efforts/conversion therapy, they know where to find those articles and their talk pages. If the editor wants to continue to argue that we should remove the well-supported "Hypotheses for the impact of the post-natal social environment on sexual orientation, however, are weak, especially for males.", I don't doubt that they also know where to find WP:DR. There's nothing to argue here. The evidence is much stronger for biological causes, including prenatal environment. Scientists haven't dismissed the role of non-biological factors, but neither have they given them as much weight as they've given biological factors. Enlightenedstranger0 ( talk) 22:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
the little-known essay Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary- what is exactly wrong with that page, except that you don't like it because it doesn't serve your purposes? {{and speaks of the possibility of sexual orientation change efforts working.}} - I never made any statement of conversion therapy working or not. All I did was citing APA which is respectful psychological organization which says that "There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation". It is a scientific fact. If this fact doesn't fit into your picture of the world it's entirely your problem not the problem of the facts. If you have any arguments against what is said at APA site you should write them and express your concerns involving scientific facts. You have to learn how to convey a conversation without lying.
If the editor wants to continue to argue that we should remove the well-supported "Hypotheses for the impact of the post-natal social environment on sexual orientation, however, are weak, especially for males.",- first of all, we should rephrase it yes. Second of all once again as APA and other scientific papers state this hypothesis is not as "well-supported" as you wish to portray that. The only proof for that is paper which co-autor Lisa Diamond later gave speech and explicitly said that "born this way argument is not scientific". Once again if the facts contradict your worldview it's entirely your problem.
There's nothing to argue here. The evidence is much stronger for biological causes, including prenatal environment- that is just false. The largest study suggests that environment plays huge role. Do you have education required to asses which scientific paper is correct and which is not?
Scientists haven't dismissed the role of non-biological factors, but neither have they given them as much weight as they've given biological factors.- that is once again pure lying in favor of your world view. You have to read the latest papers on the topic and talk Lisa Diamond(lesbian by the way) gave on TED. Conclusion: please stop twisting my words and start presenting proofs of what you say instead of pure statements. You are not at a rally here. Lpsspp ( talk) 11:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
but I'm not going to bite in the way you want me to- you can think whatever you want. The fact is not everything you think is true.
I'm saying you're awfully familiar with Wikipedia for someone with as few edits as you have- is it good or bad? Why would you mention that at all?
I don't know what you think you know about my education, but whatever you think you know is a product of your imagination and not relevant to this discussion- what I'm saying is that not having relevant education merely means that you can not properly assess information presented in those articles. That is it.
And by the way, I'm sure you meant "assess" and not "asses."- oh, yes, you're completely right here. I'm happy that you can distinguish those two.
You did argue for the possibility of sexual orientation change efforts working- that is not true. I argued that there are people who were homosexual and then became straight. How exactly they did it is a subject for a separate study obviously. But you can not deny that such people do exist.
They don't work.- that statement is a lying. There are no scientific evidence that can conclude if they work or not.
You've also misrepresented Diamond here.- oh, that's obviously not true. I merely cited what she said. You can go and check yourself.
Non-biological causes don't appear to have no role, but the research so far indicates that they do not have a big role, especially when males are considered.- well, APA states the opposite. As other studies do as well.
We know scientists say "complex roles" in terms of biological and non-biological impacts on sexual orientation. This article says it in the first sentence paragraph. So you added information that is already there and not required.- this article misrepresents the diversity of opinions on the topic and is biased towards one specific based on one review which is chosen to be "the gold standard" for some reason. The reason for that is unknown.
You also appear to be neglecting other biological factors, such as prenatal environment and hormones- that is, once again not true, if you read what I wrote carefully you'll notice that environmental factors include hormones and other biological factors along with sociocultural ones.
landscape that moves at a snail's pace- quite a controversial statement.
The APA statement is a much older statement, doesn't support what you argue here- and what do you think I argue? I only argue that environmental factors including sociocultural ones play role in sexual orientation. And APA's statement perfectly supports that.
and they've made other statements on the research since then.- like what? Do you have a link to those "other statements"?
What is this "sociocultural environment" you're referring to?- sociocultural factors may be shared or individual. Shared factors are such things as political environment, cultural environment and so on. Individual factors are such things as illnesses people were exposed to, individual sexual experience, bullying, sexual abuse(homosexual people are more likely to have had sexual abuse experience in childhood for example). You can add whatever you want it's up to you. Lpsspp ( talk) 16:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
The overly simplistic “ever or never” behavioral phenotype used by Ganna et al. led to widespread public confusion about the meaning of their study. Most accounts of the research, both in the scientific and mass media, focused on the research’s implications for “gay genes,” “sources of same-sex attraction,” and “causes of homosexuality,” even though the study did not in fact investigate attraction or sexual orientation.This is a perfect example of why we don't rely on single studies, even with a large sample size.
The bottom line is that no sources of equivalent or greater quality have been shown that contradict that evidence for social causes are weak- it is just false. I presented several sources including APA statement and largest study to date that show that social causes are considered as one of the origins of social behavior. Bottom line here is that you just ignored them all saying that they are not significant which is once again false. Lisa Diamond at her TED talk explicitly stated that "born this way" argument is not scientific anymore and sexual orientation is not fixed and can change during person's life. Appealing ti Dean Hammer is just sheer nonsense - he quit his scientific carrier and became a filmmaker. He is trying to protect his Xq28 gene hypothesis which has never been robustly confirmed(refer to Xq28 "Subsequent studies"). And once again it's not one study. You can find at least three above. Open your eyes. Lpsspp ( talk) 10:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Articles on sexual orientation are filled with claims that male homosexuality is linked to "feminization" or "demasculinization"; Why so much insistence on these assumptions? It's almost like they're "proven facts". For example, maternal immunization theoretically affects all fetuses, including those who will be heterosexual in the future, so it is just as possible that antibodies against male antigens are responsible for heterosexuality as it is for homosexuality. Nobody knows how such antibodies interact with such antigens, how cells and molecules react, if the fetus itself does not operate some kind of defense against maternal immunization, but they already assume that male homosexuality is derived from a congenital sexual deficiency. I appeal to you all to treat the hypotheses raised by these studies with the greatest care and neutrality as possible, without inferring (or categorically stating) that homosexuality is originated from sexual defects. It is all very speculative, therefore homosexuals do not deserve to be seen in the academic environment nor for Wikipedia readers as intersex or as people who were not very well sexually differentiated. Grateful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.95.47.193 ( talk) 17:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)