The article reads, 'Other researchers have also provided evidence that gay men report having had less loving and more rejecting fathers, and closer relationships with their mothers, than non-gay men.[12] Whether this phenomenon is a cause of homosexuality, or whether parents behave this way in response to gender-variant traits in a child, is unclear.'
This theory of sexual orientation mentioned in the first sentence is largely due to Freud; it's absurd that Freud should not be mentioned here. Also, I think the sourcing for the second sentence is bad. Isay is clearly of the view that the parental behaviour is as a response to the children's homosexuality/gender variance, rather than the other way around. Michael Ruse's book Homosexuality might be a better source for this statement (which should be modified to mention that both possibilities might be true in different cases, something Ruse has pointed out). Skoojal ( talk) 03:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I have two items. Firstly, I suggest explaing a bit what "environment" refers in this context as it may mean different things to different people and we need to ensure that when we're comparing research they were researching and commenting on similar things. Which brings me to the second issue; the sentence "Many think both play complex roles." with cites and quotes to the American Psychological Association (APA) and Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrics (AGLP). The APA quote is likely fine depending on how the article is using "environment" The AGLP quote, however, only concerns biological etiologies. Banjeboi 07:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
From the abstract to the Långström paper: "Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34-.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61-.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18-.19 for genetic factors, .16-.17 for shared environmental, and 64-.66 for unique environmental factors." I think it is really very misleading to not report the shared environment results (especially since this is going in the lede). If the thesis of this article is that things like parenting style, or social influences during childhood, play a significant effect in determining sexual orientation, then 0.00 for males and 0.16-0.17 for females is the far more relevant number, and not terribly supportive to the article's thesis. Pete.Hurd ( talk) 13:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
A sentence in the article reads:"A 2000 American twin study also showed that familial factors influence sexual orientation.[9]" Compare this statement to the abstract from the article itself "Biometrical twin modeling suggested that sexual orientation was substantially influenced by genetic factors, but family environment may also play a role. [...] CONCLUSIONS: Familial factors, which are at least partly genetic, influence sexual orientation." I think the article does not honestly represent the source. Pete.Hurd ( talk) 13:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, see also my comments at Talk:Biology_and_sexual_orientation#.22Karolinska.22_ref. Pete.Hurd ( talk) 21:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The article mentions the hypothesis of homosexuality being caused by absence of the parent of the same gender during upbringing. Has it not been disproven by the fact that gays are not overrepresented amongst men with physically absent fathers? I think I have read it somewhere but I don't remember where.
2009-06-10 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
I've read that some researchers had made ties between prenatal hormones and contraception, suggesting that things like the birth control pill could have an impact on male sexual orientation. ADM ( talk) 02:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Calling Heterosexual and Homosexual dispositions an "Orientation" presents a problem, I think, because "Orientation" clearly implies that it is learned behavior and not apart of one's nature. I don't think I have an "Orientation," but rather one of the many aspects of the Human Condition. I know that isn't a better term to call it, but it'll have to do until I find one better. Avazina 00:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Explanation for this editation is fully compliant with Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Use up-to-date evidence Putting it back is obviously in contradiction with Wikipedia rules. -- Destinero ( talk) 21:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I find essential the following study and it's conclusion to be mentioned in the article: "The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation." http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Doi=262525 -- Destinero ( talk) 10:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The APA currently states on their web site:
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation. [2]
This was removed saying it was outdated. If the APA thinks it is outdated, they can remove it. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 22:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
http://content.karger.com/produktedb/produkte.asp?doi=10.1159/000262525&typ=pdf
These are pretty clear statements of the most credible scientific and expert sources on the World that hopefully even you can understand them and respect them. WP:MEDRS requires to use up-to-date evidence, respect secondary sources and summarize scientific consensus. WP:NPOV tell us "Viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Thus, this article need to be updated and edited to reflect fundamental Wikipedia policies and recommendations as soon as possible. -- Destinero ( talk) 08:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
It should be made clear that (as on the page concerning fraternal birth order) the researchers who did the work supporting fraternal birth effect found: "The effect has been found even in males not raised with their biological brothers, suggesting an in-utero environmental causation." which is why they support that it is biological, rather than environmental. I'm not saying fraternal birth order shouldn't be mentioned here, in the environment article --this is still up for debate-- it should just be made clear that there is data to support the effect being in-utero and therefore "biological" in nature.
Unless we are actually considering prenatal environment to be purely environmental, rather than biological? If the two articles were called 'genetics and sexual orientation' and 'environment and sexual orientation' there might be reason to put it here, but the other article is entitled 'biology and sexual orientation'. It is not even mentioned in that article, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.128.222 ( talk) 05:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The article Homosexuality is undergoing revision. The revised version is available in the sandbox and the project documentation and coordination is taking place in the Sandbox's talk page.
I would appreciate if people joined in. I'm currently looking towards forming a team for the revision and future maintenance of this article.
Thank you,
Pdorion (
talk)
08:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a dispute whether to observe the rules of Wikipedia recommendations such as WP:MEDRS requiring to respect secondary sources, summarize scientific consensus, use up-to-date evidence. These recommendations are undisputed by owerhelming majority of Wikipedians and I see now reason why need to wait for editorial consensus on Talk page on self-evident issue just because there are intentional POV of one or two editors. Destinero ( talk) 09:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The first sentence of section 2 ("Family Issues"), "Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting, early childhood experiences, sexual abuse, or other adverse life play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation," is not original to Wikipedia but is taken verbatim from source 9 from the same page (Royal College of Psychiatrists: "Submission to the Church of England's Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality"). The sentence quoted here can be found in the original source material on p.2; it is the first sentence of the source's Section 2, "The Origins of Homosexuality".
Other sentences from the original source material can be found interspersed in the Wikipedia article. They appear to be followed with citation markers directing the reader to the source material, but without proper quotation the sentences appear to be the creation of the author(s) of the Wikipedia article and not of the authors of the source material.
65.6.139.251 ( talk) 03:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)eni
This whole section is riddled with problems. For example:
Firstly the paper is quite old (1978) and it cites even older studies, but secondly, ' primitive cultures' is an offensive term and is no longer used in anthropology circles (who says what is primitive and what isn't?)
Only reference is CNN and a highly dubious statement. How could that even be studied? No credible study could ever demonstrate that.
Who is this Binnie Klein and why is she relevant? The general consensus is that sexuality is not a choice, as seems to be implied by this quote.
Also, what's with the Sotadic zone— an extremely old hypothesis? Wouldn't that better fit in LGBT history?
And what's with the Miron Baron quote suggesting that homosexuality is genetic? The cause of homosexuality is unknown, but research is moving more in the direction if it being related to fetal exposure to hormones, and possibly some other factors such as genetics, but there is no proof that homosexuality is entirely genetic that I'm aware of.
122.107.72.12 ( talk) 10:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
It's a common and heterosexist view that there are two sexual orientations, namely a male sexual orientation and a female sexual orientation and that these sexual orientations are homosexual or heterosexual depending on the sex of the individual they occur in. Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab aren't entirely right saying there is "no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation." (Quoted in the first paragraph of the Family influences section.) But they are entirely hypocritical as there is even less indication that a male homosexual's sexual orientation is necessarily the result of feminization. This is a heterosexist view and results from an extremely simplistic conception of human sexuality and sexuality's role in evolution. I would like to see the quote removed and ideally replaced with another source stating the same conclusion without propagating a simplistic, unsupported and offensive hypothesis of sexual orientation development.
Another problem is that the section on childhood gender non-conformity doesn't make clear that many (or most) homosexual men were gender-conforming children, being distinct from other boys only in sexuality and only in adolescence or in prepubescent sexual attraction. 75.132.142.26 ( talk) 03:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
It is well known that several studies have shown a correlation between sexual preference and a history of sexual abuse. I added a section that quoted directly from two academic journals, which was promptly removed, with a flimsy explanation. This is no place for intellectual dishonesty and censorship. To remove direct quotes from journal articles because they don't support one's POV is a dispicable act, and should not be tolerated. Here is the passage for posterity, please enlighten me as to a) a passage that is all quotes can constitute a "mischaracterization", and b) the lead-off sentence could have been any more neutral? I said "they have not established causation"! What more do you want?
Here is my paragraph:
Several studies have shown a correlation between homosexuality and a history of sexual abuse, although they have not established causation. For instance, one study found that "Abused adolescents, particularly those victimized by males, were up to 7 times more likely to self-identify as gay or bisexual than peers who had not been abused." [1] Another found that "Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation." [2] Academic studies also exist that deny and correlation between sexual orientation and a history of abuse.
Ragazz ( talk) 23:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
-- В и к и T 10:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Article by Rothman and Deinera The prevalence of sexual assault against people who identify as Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual in the United States: A systematic review reviewed the prevalence of "lifetime sexual assault victimization" and where available, childhood sexual assault (CSA), adult sexual assault (ASA), intimate partner sexual assault (IPSA), and hate crime-related sexual assault (HC) among gay or bisexual (GB) men, and lesbian or bisexual (LB) women. How is this relevant to development of sexual orientation?-- В и к и T 10:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The entire article is unbalanced. Even if one presupposes that the sole orientations are the binary heterosexual or homosexual, something that has been shown to be incorrect, the article discusses nothing other than why some people, usually men, are homosexual.
Even if we remain in the binary arena, nothing seems to discuss why many people are heterosexual. I presume this is because such a declared orientation is assumed to be a given, but Wikipedia articles around that assumption are, generally, not valid.
The entire article appears to me to be based upon studies of why people are or become homosexual, and not about any environmental factors affecting sexual orientation. There is substantial other material required in this article to make it worthy of a place here.
The title is also assumptive. Environment and sexual orientation is a grand title, but does not appear to encompass any observed or studied sexual orientation in non human creatures. I believe it requires the addition of the word human or the addition of segments on the environment and its effect or otherwise on non human sexual orientation. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 06:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
o. m. f. g. The things that await me when I log in to this place. I also took "equine necrophilia" to be an oblique reference to
WP:HORSE
WP:STICK, but now that I think about it there would have to be an S&M component as well. Or an 'S' component, anyway—maybe not an 'M', since dead horses can't exactly appreciate being beaten. Wait, are we really having this discussion? Fwiw, I think you both make perfect sense. I understand what you're getting at, Fiddle Faddle, and I sympathize with what you're saying. However, I think Flyer22 is right about following the sources. If the preponderance of the most reliable secondary sources (such as the APA) frame the topic in terms of "what causes homosexuality", then the article needs to reflect that, even if it's illogical. Is there room to expand the article in the way you've suggested? I have no idea. This is pretty far from my bailiwick, and Flyer22 has a much better idea of what sources are out there than I do. I will say I think we need to be very cautious about sourcing and attempts at balance; undue weight has been a major concern with both this and a related article. (Btw, Flyer, I did get what you meant; I just thought that throwing the choice concept and the word "defect" in there were distracting and easy to misconstrue.)
Rivertorch (
talk)
05:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
First sentence: "Environment and sexual orientation is research into possible environmental influences on the development of human sexual orientation."
And then we have correlates in most of the article such as childhood gender non-conformity and how people have more same-sex marriages in Copenhagen.
One of the most basic principles in science is that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Cavann ( talk) 23:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Well Flyer22, I think this change I made has been my shortest lived ever. See that I added nothing that it was not already there. The object of the rearrangement was to eliminate the sentence "Environment and sexual orientation is research into possible environmental influences on the development of human sexual orientation" that I, and some other, consider not very fortunate. Notice that I bolded environment, and did not bold sexual orientation because it was linked, and recommendations suggest not to bold them. Of course other approaches are possible, for instance the proposal of MrX.-- Auró ( talk) 21:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Agree, it is correct now.-- Auró ( talk) 13:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no genetic evidence of a homosexual gene despite many millions spent over many years in search of a genetic factor. It is a sociological issue despite the many politically based claims designed to elicit sympathy for the homosexual/alternative lifestyle political movement. This hypothesis is understood among sociologists who study cultures over time. Repeating and referencing outdated theories that have been found to be unsupportive by modern genetics is unproductive. A reference must be credible and those claiming a possible biological factor are outdated based on modern genetic studies. It does however serve a political purpose designed to garner sympathy as a "condition someone is born with." There is clearly no genetic evidence to support such claims. The possibility of a genetic mutation from the mother's diet/medicines are also unsupported in genetic studies. The most credible theory that has not been disproven by hard science is that it is a sociological condition. Homosexuality may also have an psychological factor but stating that theory is often met with hostile replies by those promoting political views and not science. There is evidence to support that theory as well which has gained new adherents due to a lack of a genetic basis. The problem with the psychological theory is that it is more of a descriptive science of conditions than a hard science supported by empirical evidence. The psychology of the human mind is still among the least understood areas of the human body so that theory faces many more hurdles to prove or disprove. The Sociological condition is supported with evidence when one studies various cultures throughout history. This theory has been promoted in recent sociological texts. When one considers the lack of genetic evidence and difficulties with the psychological theory this becomes the most scientifically supported theory. 172.56.11.83 ( talk) 02:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
This section is incredibly biased. Where are the studies that completely contradict these nonsense claims? How desperate can you be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.11.98 ( talk) 12:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I can't believe you are seriously putting anything by deregistered psychologist and anti-gay crusader Paul Cameron on this page. Do some fact checking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.11.98 ( talk) 12:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Have researchers found childhood gender nonconformity to be a factor of homosexuality in adulthood?
Not according to our sources, which seem to say "the possibility [exists] that factors causing people to differ in sexual orientation as adults are already influential in childhood and contribute to a corresponding difference in gender nonconformity." Please let me know if I'm missing something.- Mr X 00:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
You guys need to do some fact checking on Paul Cameron and on Schumm. Seriously? Try the reviews on Dr Warren Throckmortons blog where he takes those so-called "studies" completely apart and exposes them for what they are. Anti-gay idealogical pseudoscience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.11.98 ( talk) 12:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Flyer22, You undid my revision 645627489 which added the statement by Royal College of Psychiatrists, which states: "sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors."
Your reason for the undo is "Not needed. Overkill".
But, it is not an overkill for the following reasons.
Thus, they are two very different statements. APA basically states that they don't know; RCP basically states that they do know. How can RCP statement be an overkill? I believe the public has a right to know about their statement that positively acknowledges postnatal environmental factors.
205.241.40.253 ( talk) 20:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The first line of the section titled 'Cultural influences' states: "Anthropologists had observed that relatively uncompetitive primitive cultures such as those that do not distinguish or reward the best hunters in distinction to the other men in the tribe have virtually no homosexuality." The statement is rather peculiar. The source given is a website that quotes a brief excerpt from a 1978 article by Herbert Hendin. The excerpt does not specify how the author defined 'homosexuality' nor whether he distinguished between homosexual desire, behavior, and identity. The primary sources the author used to come to his conclusion are also unavailable. While I have found the article the excerpt is taken from, I have been unsuccessful in accessing it (it requires a fee I cannot afford). Is it possible for someone to read the actual article and specify what the author meant in addition to seeing whether the study is reliable or not? To my knowledge, studies have not been able to rule out the existence of people with homosexual desires in communities even if said communities do not have a concept of sexual orientation identity or overt expressions of same-sex desire.
Regarding the reliability of the cited article and Mr. Hendin's expertise in the field of sexual orientation, I have some doubts. The only other article by Mr. Hendin I could find on the topic of sexual orientation is a 1963 article titled Psychotherapy of Male Homosexuality which had "the narrow but definitive therapeutic goal of establishing and maintaining pleasurable heterosexual behavior in a homosexual patient" (basically conversion therapy). In the article, Mr. Hendin and his peers have stated they are unaware of any genetic factors underlying sexual orientation (excusable, considering it was the 60s) and went on to say that "Adaptationally, homosexuality is seen as a deviant form of sexual behavior into which a person is driven by the intrusion of fear into the normal heterosexual function. The fear takes its origin from excessive parental discipline in the formative years of child[hood]..." According to PubMed, Mr. Hendin has not done any more work on sexual orientation (almost all of his subsequent articles have been on the topic of suicide). Our knowledge of sexual orientation, and specifically homosexuality, has grown significantly since he had his last article on such a topic published. I think a better source (preferably a relatively recent one) is needed to back up a claim as consequential as 'uncompetative cultures have no homosexuality'. If a better source is not found I think the first line of the 'Cultural influences' section should be removed. Human10.0 ( talk) 07:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The lead section of this article has a statement from American Psychological Association which states: "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. [..] Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
It is odd that the statement is edited to use [...] instead of its original sentence: "Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles;"
Without the "nature and nurture" sentence, the APA statement sounds incomplete. Without it, the statement sounds like saying, "we don't know. period." However, with it, the statement takes on a different tone of "we don't know for certain, but we think nature and nurture."
Thus, I propose that we put back the "nature and nurture" sentence instead of displaying, [...]
If the reason for the omission was to make the statement concise, then why is the following sentence even there? "Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." What does the "sense of choice" have to do with this article about Environment and sexual orientation? The "nature and nurture" sentence is more pertinent to the subject of Environment than the "sense of choice". (The "sense of choice" is more suited for
Sexual Orientation article than here, but I don't mind it being here.)
Please let me know your thoughts.
205.241.40.253 ( talk) 23:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I copied from the top of the thread instead of the article. I've corrected it. I will comment on the rest of your comment after I carefully read it.- Mr X 02:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Respectfully, I suggest that the wording introduced by this edit is unnecessarily complicated and over-elaborate. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 03:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The lead could be worse overall, Flyer22. I don't think the version before your edit was necessarily better. My problem with the part of the lead concerning the views of various professional organizations ("The American Psychological Association and Royal College of Psychiatrists acknowledge scientific theories that sexual orientation is caused by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors, but the American Psychological Association adds that despite much research into the 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") is that if indeed the views of the American Psychological Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists are distinct, it seems perhaps undesirable to include them together in the same sentence. Ideally each organization's view should be presented in a separate sentence if their views are not the same. I also have to say that the article's initial sentence ("The relationship between environment and sexual orientation is a subject of research into possible environmental influences on the development of human sexual orientation") is almost unintelligible. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 05:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Update: Changed paragraph. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 08:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |year=
/ |date=
mismatch (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
The article reads, 'Other researchers have also provided evidence that gay men report having had less loving and more rejecting fathers, and closer relationships with their mothers, than non-gay men.[12] Whether this phenomenon is a cause of homosexuality, or whether parents behave this way in response to gender-variant traits in a child, is unclear.'
This theory of sexual orientation mentioned in the first sentence is largely due to Freud; it's absurd that Freud should not be mentioned here. Also, I think the sourcing for the second sentence is bad. Isay is clearly of the view that the parental behaviour is as a response to the children's homosexuality/gender variance, rather than the other way around. Michael Ruse's book Homosexuality might be a better source for this statement (which should be modified to mention that both possibilities might be true in different cases, something Ruse has pointed out). Skoojal ( talk) 03:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I have two items. Firstly, I suggest explaing a bit what "environment" refers in this context as it may mean different things to different people and we need to ensure that when we're comparing research they were researching and commenting on similar things. Which brings me to the second issue; the sentence "Many think both play complex roles." with cites and quotes to the American Psychological Association (APA) and Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrics (AGLP). The APA quote is likely fine depending on how the article is using "environment" The AGLP quote, however, only concerns biological etiologies. Banjeboi 07:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
From the abstract to the Långström paper: "Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34-.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61-.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18-.19 for genetic factors, .16-.17 for shared environmental, and 64-.66 for unique environmental factors." I think it is really very misleading to not report the shared environment results (especially since this is going in the lede). If the thesis of this article is that things like parenting style, or social influences during childhood, play a significant effect in determining sexual orientation, then 0.00 for males and 0.16-0.17 for females is the far more relevant number, and not terribly supportive to the article's thesis. Pete.Hurd ( talk) 13:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
A sentence in the article reads:"A 2000 American twin study also showed that familial factors influence sexual orientation.[9]" Compare this statement to the abstract from the article itself "Biometrical twin modeling suggested that sexual orientation was substantially influenced by genetic factors, but family environment may also play a role. [...] CONCLUSIONS: Familial factors, which are at least partly genetic, influence sexual orientation." I think the article does not honestly represent the source. Pete.Hurd ( talk) 13:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, see also my comments at Talk:Biology_and_sexual_orientation#.22Karolinska.22_ref. Pete.Hurd ( talk) 21:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The article mentions the hypothesis of homosexuality being caused by absence of the parent of the same gender during upbringing. Has it not been disproven by the fact that gays are not overrepresented amongst men with physically absent fathers? I think I have read it somewhere but I don't remember where.
2009-06-10 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
I've read that some researchers had made ties between prenatal hormones and contraception, suggesting that things like the birth control pill could have an impact on male sexual orientation. ADM ( talk) 02:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Calling Heterosexual and Homosexual dispositions an "Orientation" presents a problem, I think, because "Orientation" clearly implies that it is learned behavior and not apart of one's nature. I don't think I have an "Orientation," but rather one of the many aspects of the Human Condition. I know that isn't a better term to call it, but it'll have to do until I find one better. Avazina 00:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Explanation for this editation is fully compliant with Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Use up-to-date evidence Putting it back is obviously in contradiction with Wikipedia rules. -- Destinero ( talk) 21:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I find essential the following study and it's conclusion to be mentioned in the article: "The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation." http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Doi=262525 -- Destinero ( talk) 10:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The APA currently states on their web site:
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation. [2]
This was removed saying it was outdated. If the APA thinks it is outdated, they can remove it. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 22:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
http://content.karger.com/produktedb/produkte.asp?doi=10.1159/000262525&typ=pdf
These are pretty clear statements of the most credible scientific and expert sources on the World that hopefully even you can understand them and respect them. WP:MEDRS requires to use up-to-date evidence, respect secondary sources and summarize scientific consensus. WP:NPOV tell us "Viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Thus, this article need to be updated and edited to reflect fundamental Wikipedia policies and recommendations as soon as possible. -- Destinero ( talk) 08:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
It should be made clear that (as on the page concerning fraternal birth order) the researchers who did the work supporting fraternal birth effect found: "The effect has been found even in males not raised with their biological brothers, suggesting an in-utero environmental causation." which is why they support that it is biological, rather than environmental. I'm not saying fraternal birth order shouldn't be mentioned here, in the environment article --this is still up for debate-- it should just be made clear that there is data to support the effect being in-utero and therefore "biological" in nature.
Unless we are actually considering prenatal environment to be purely environmental, rather than biological? If the two articles were called 'genetics and sexual orientation' and 'environment and sexual orientation' there might be reason to put it here, but the other article is entitled 'biology and sexual orientation'. It is not even mentioned in that article, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.128.222 ( talk) 05:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The article Homosexuality is undergoing revision. The revised version is available in the sandbox and the project documentation and coordination is taking place in the Sandbox's talk page.
I would appreciate if people joined in. I'm currently looking towards forming a team for the revision and future maintenance of this article.
Thank you,
Pdorion (
talk)
08:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a dispute whether to observe the rules of Wikipedia recommendations such as WP:MEDRS requiring to respect secondary sources, summarize scientific consensus, use up-to-date evidence. These recommendations are undisputed by owerhelming majority of Wikipedians and I see now reason why need to wait for editorial consensus on Talk page on self-evident issue just because there are intentional POV of one or two editors. Destinero ( talk) 09:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The first sentence of section 2 ("Family Issues"), "Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting, early childhood experiences, sexual abuse, or other adverse life play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation," is not original to Wikipedia but is taken verbatim from source 9 from the same page (Royal College of Psychiatrists: "Submission to the Church of England's Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality"). The sentence quoted here can be found in the original source material on p.2; it is the first sentence of the source's Section 2, "The Origins of Homosexuality".
Other sentences from the original source material can be found interspersed in the Wikipedia article. They appear to be followed with citation markers directing the reader to the source material, but without proper quotation the sentences appear to be the creation of the author(s) of the Wikipedia article and not of the authors of the source material.
65.6.139.251 ( talk) 03:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)eni
This whole section is riddled with problems. For example:
Firstly the paper is quite old (1978) and it cites even older studies, but secondly, ' primitive cultures' is an offensive term and is no longer used in anthropology circles (who says what is primitive and what isn't?)
Only reference is CNN and a highly dubious statement. How could that even be studied? No credible study could ever demonstrate that.
Who is this Binnie Klein and why is she relevant? The general consensus is that sexuality is not a choice, as seems to be implied by this quote.
Also, what's with the Sotadic zone— an extremely old hypothesis? Wouldn't that better fit in LGBT history?
And what's with the Miron Baron quote suggesting that homosexuality is genetic? The cause of homosexuality is unknown, but research is moving more in the direction if it being related to fetal exposure to hormones, and possibly some other factors such as genetics, but there is no proof that homosexuality is entirely genetic that I'm aware of.
122.107.72.12 ( talk) 10:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
It's a common and heterosexist view that there are two sexual orientations, namely a male sexual orientation and a female sexual orientation and that these sexual orientations are homosexual or heterosexual depending on the sex of the individual they occur in. Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab aren't entirely right saying there is "no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation." (Quoted in the first paragraph of the Family influences section.) But they are entirely hypocritical as there is even less indication that a male homosexual's sexual orientation is necessarily the result of feminization. This is a heterosexist view and results from an extremely simplistic conception of human sexuality and sexuality's role in evolution. I would like to see the quote removed and ideally replaced with another source stating the same conclusion without propagating a simplistic, unsupported and offensive hypothesis of sexual orientation development.
Another problem is that the section on childhood gender non-conformity doesn't make clear that many (or most) homosexual men were gender-conforming children, being distinct from other boys only in sexuality and only in adolescence or in prepubescent sexual attraction. 75.132.142.26 ( talk) 03:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
It is well known that several studies have shown a correlation between sexual preference and a history of sexual abuse. I added a section that quoted directly from two academic journals, which was promptly removed, with a flimsy explanation. This is no place for intellectual dishonesty and censorship. To remove direct quotes from journal articles because they don't support one's POV is a dispicable act, and should not be tolerated. Here is the passage for posterity, please enlighten me as to a) a passage that is all quotes can constitute a "mischaracterization", and b) the lead-off sentence could have been any more neutral? I said "they have not established causation"! What more do you want?
Here is my paragraph:
Several studies have shown a correlation between homosexuality and a history of sexual abuse, although they have not established causation. For instance, one study found that "Abused adolescents, particularly those victimized by males, were up to 7 times more likely to self-identify as gay or bisexual than peers who had not been abused." [1] Another found that "Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation." [2] Academic studies also exist that deny and correlation between sexual orientation and a history of abuse.
Ragazz ( talk) 23:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
-- В и к и T 10:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Article by Rothman and Deinera The prevalence of sexual assault against people who identify as Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual in the United States: A systematic review reviewed the prevalence of "lifetime sexual assault victimization" and where available, childhood sexual assault (CSA), adult sexual assault (ASA), intimate partner sexual assault (IPSA), and hate crime-related sexual assault (HC) among gay or bisexual (GB) men, and lesbian or bisexual (LB) women. How is this relevant to development of sexual orientation?-- В и к и T 10:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The entire article is unbalanced. Even if one presupposes that the sole orientations are the binary heterosexual or homosexual, something that has been shown to be incorrect, the article discusses nothing other than why some people, usually men, are homosexual.
Even if we remain in the binary arena, nothing seems to discuss why many people are heterosexual. I presume this is because such a declared orientation is assumed to be a given, but Wikipedia articles around that assumption are, generally, not valid.
The entire article appears to me to be based upon studies of why people are or become homosexual, and not about any environmental factors affecting sexual orientation. There is substantial other material required in this article to make it worthy of a place here.
The title is also assumptive. Environment and sexual orientation is a grand title, but does not appear to encompass any observed or studied sexual orientation in non human creatures. I believe it requires the addition of the word human or the addition of segments on the environment and its effect or otherwise on non human sexual orientation. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 06:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
o. m. f. g. The things that await me when I log in to this place. I also took "equine necrophilia" to be an oblique reference to
WP:HORSE
WP:STICK, but now that I think about it there would have to be an S&M component as well. Or an 'S' component, anyway—maybe not an 'M', since dead horses can't exactly appreciate being beaten. Wait, are we really having this discussion? Fwiw, I think you both make perfect sense. I understand what you're getting at, Fiddle Faddle, and I sympathize with what you're saying. However, I think Flyer22 is right about following the sources. If the preponderance of the most reliable secondary sources (such as the APA) frame the topic in terms of "what causes homosexuality", then the article needs to reflect that, even if it's illogical. Is there room to expand the article in the way you've suggested? I have no idea. This is pretty far from my bailiwick, and Flyer22 has a much better idea of what sources are out there than I do. I will say I think we need to be very cautious about sourcing and attempts at balance; undue weight has been a major concern with both this and a related article. (Btw, Flyer, I did get what you meant; I just thought that throwing the choice concept and the word "defect" in there were distracting and easy to misconstrue.)
Rivertorch (
talk)
05:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
First sentence: "Environment and sexual orientation is research into possible environmental influences on the development of human sexual orientation."
And then we have correlates in most of the article such as childhood gender non-conformity and how people have more same-sex marriages in Copenhagen.
One of the most basic principles in science is that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Cavann ( talk) 23:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Well Flyer22, I think this change I made has been my shortest lived ever. See that I added nothing that it was not already there. The object of the rearrangement was to eliminate the sentence "Environment and sexual orientation is research into possible environmental influences on the development of human sexual orientation" that I, and some other, consider not very fortunate. Notice that I bolded environment, and did not bold sexual orientation because it was linked, and recommendations suggest not to bold them. Of course other approaches are possible, for instance the proposal of MrX.-- Auró ( talk) 21:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Agree, it is correct now.-- Auró ( talk) 13:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no genetic evidence of a homosexual gene despite many millions spent over many years in search of a genetic factor. It is a sociological issue despite the many politically based claims designed to elicit sympathy for the homosexual/alternative lifestyle political movement. This hypothesis is understood among sociologists who study cultures over time. Repeating and referencing outdated theories that have been found to be unsupportive by modern genetics is unproductive. A reference must be credible and those claiming a possible biological factor are outdated based on modern genetic studies. It does however serve a political purpose designed to garner sympathy as a "condition someone is born with." There is clearly no genetic evidence to support such claims. The possibility of a genetic mutation from the mother's diet/medicines are also unsupported in genetic studies. The most credible theory that has not been disproven by hard science is that it is a sociological condition. Homosexuality may also have an psychological factor but stating that theory is often met with hostile replies by those promoting political views and not science. There is evidence to support that theory as well which has gained new adherents due to a lack of a genetic basis. The problem with the psychological theory is that it is more of a descriptive science of conditions than a hard science supported by empirical evidence. The psychology of the human mind is still among the least understood areas of the human body so that theory faces many more hurdles to prove or disprove. The Sociological condition is supported with evidence when one studies various cultures throughout history. This theory has been promoted in recent sociological texts. When one considers the lack of genetic evidence and difficulties with the psychological theory this becomes the most scientifically supported theory. 172.56.11.83 ( talk) 02:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
This section is incredibly biased. Where are the studies that completely contradict these nonsense claims? How desperate can you be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.11.98 ( talk) 12:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I can't believe you are seriously putting anything by deregistered psychologist and anti-gay crusader Paul Cameron on this page. Do some fact checking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.11.98 ( talk) 12:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Have researchers found childhood gender nonconformity to be a factor of homosexuality in adulthood?
Not according to our sources, which seem to say "the possibility [exists] that factors causing people to differ in sexual orientation as adults are already influential in childhood and contribute to a corresponding difference in gender nonconformity." Please let me know if I'm missing something.- Mr X 00:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
You guys need to do some fact checking on Paul Cameron and on Schumm. Seriously? Try the reviews on Dr Warren Throckmortons blog where he takes those so-called "studies" completely apart and exposes them for what they are. Anti-gay idealogical pseudoscience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.11.98 ( talk) 12:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Flyer22, You undid my revision 645627489 which added the statement by Royal College of Psychiatrists, which states: "sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors."
Your reason for the undo is "Not needed. Overkill".
But, it is not an overkill for the following reasons.
Thus, they are two very different statements. APA basically states that they don't know; RCP basically states that they do know. How can RCP statement be an overkill? I believe the public has a right to know about their statement that positively acknowledges postnatal environmental factors.
205.241.40.253 ( talk) 20:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The first line of the section titled 'Cultural influences' states: "Anthropologists had observed that relatively uncompetitive primitive cultures such as those that do not distinguish or reward the best hunters in distinction to the other men in the tribe have virtually no homosexuality." The statement is rather peculiar. The source given is a website that quotes a brief excerpt from a 1978 article by Herbert Hendin. The excerpt does not specify how the author defined 'homosexuality' nor whether he distinguished between homosexual desire, behavior, and identity. The primary sources the author used to come to his conclusion are also unavailable. While I have found the article the excerpt is taken from, I have been unsuccessful in accessing it (it requires a fee I cannot afford). Is it possible for someone to read the actual article and specify what the author meant in addition to seeing whether the study is reliable or not? To my knowledge, studies have not been able to rule out the existence of people with homosexual desires in communities even if said communities do not have a concept of sexual orientation identity or overt expressions of same-sex desire.
Regarding the reliability of the cited article and Mr. Hendin's expertise in the field of sexual orientation, I have some doubts. The only other article by Mr. Hendin I could find on the topic of sexual orientation is a 1963 article titled Psychotherapy of Male Homosexuality which had "the narrow but definitive therapeutic goal of establishing and maintaining pleasurable heterosexual behavior in a homosexual patient" (basically conversion therapy). In the article, Mr. Hendin and his peers have stated they are unaware of any genetic factors underlying sexual orientation (excusable, considering it was the 60s) and went on to say that "Adaptationally, homosexuality is seen as a deviant form of sexual behavior into which a person is driven by the intrusion of fear into the normal heterosexual function. The fear takes its origin from excessive parental discipline in the formative years of child[hood]..." According to PubMed, Mr. Hendin has not done any more work on sexual orientation (almost all of his subsequent articles have been on the topic of suicide). Our knowledge of sexual orientation, and specifically homosexuality, has grown significantly since he had his last article on such a topic published. I think a better source (preferably a relatively recent one) is needed to back up a claim as consequential as 'uncompetative cultures have no homosexuality'. If a better source is not found I think the first line of the 'Cultural influences' section should be removed. Human10.0 ( talk) 07:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The lead section of this article has a statement from American Psychological Association which states: "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. [..] Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
It is odd that the statement is edited to use [...] instead of its original sentence: "Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles;"
Without the "nature and nurture" sentence, the APA statement sounds incomplete. Without it, the statement sounds like saying, "we don't know. period." However, with it, the statement takes on a different tone of "we don't know for certain, but we think nature and nurture."
Thus, I propose that we put back the "nature and nurture" sentence instead of displaying, [...]
If the reason for the omission was to make the statement concise, then why is the following sentence even there? "Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." What does the "sense of choice" have to do with this article about Environment and sexual orientation? The "nature and nurture" sentence is more pertinent to the subject of Environment than the "sense of choice". (The "sense of choice" is more suited for
Sexual Orientation article than here, but I don't mind it being here.)
Please let me know your thoughts.
205.241.40.253 ( talk) 23:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I copied from the top of the thread instead of the article. I've corrected it. I will comment on the rest of your comment after I carefully read it.- Mr X 02:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Respectfully, I suggest that the wording introduced by this edit is unnecessarily complicated and over-elaborate. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 03:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The lead could be worse overall, Flyer22. I don't think the version before your edit was necessarily better. My problem with the part of the lead concerning the views of various professional organizations ("The American Psychological Association and Royal College of Psychiatrists acknowledge scientific theories that sexual orientation is caused by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors, but the American Psychological Association adds that despite much research into the 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") is that if indeed the views of the American Psychological Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists are distinct, it seems perhaps undesirable to include them together in the same sentence. Ideally each organization's view should be presented in a separate sentence if their views are not the same. I also have to say that the article's initial sentence ("The relationship between environment and sexual orientation is a subject of research into possible environmental influences on the development of human sexual orientation") is almost unintelligible. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 05:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Update: Changed paragraph. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 08:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |year=
/ |date=
mismatch (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)